Spiegel Science Journalist Takes Climate Heat-Hysteria Head On: “Speculation”…”Time For A Cool Examination”

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

Give Der Spiegel credit for offering some balance in a debate that sorely needs it…

Geology major, science journalist Axel Bojanowski just penned a commentary at Spiegel Online on the recent hot weather hype we witnessed in the wake of Europe’s warm and unusually dry summer.

Spiegel journalist Axel Bojanowski takes the recent climate heating hysteria head on, writing that the recent shrill claims by some scientists defy IPCC’s own findings. Photo image: cropped from Twitter here.

The title of his commentary: “Overheated – Forest Fires, Drought, Heat – Has The Climate Catastrophe Already Arrived? Time For A Cool Examination.”

Media “part of the problem”

Over the past couple of weeks, alarmists and media from the usual suspect institutes have been stopping at nothing to blame this year’s dry northern European summer on man-made climate change, and have renewed (from within their air-conditioned offices) calls for people to finally accept making the huge sacrifices needed to keep the climate system from “tipping” into irreversible catastrophe.

The Spiegel journalist comments on another shrill column, by , published a week earlier also by Spiegel. Diez echoed the doom and gloom presented to us in Losing Earth: The Decade We Almost Stopped Climate Change by Nathaniel Rich of the New York Times magazine.

According to Diez, it is now clear “what it means to live in a time of catastrophe”.

Here Bojanowski notes “it turns out that many reports are part of the problem.”

Global warming not known and “supported” until the 1990s

Firstly, Bojanowski calls the claim that we knew about global warming already back in the 1970s false, and that it was in reality first an idea that only came up in the 1980s and did not get scientifically supported until the 1990s. He then adds that “considerable uncertainties remain, that still have not been cleared away even until today.”

James Hansen “damaged trust in climate science”

Bojanowski also describes how James Hansen jumped the gun in 1988, and how his methods “damaged the trust in climate science even until today.” Another problem at the time was the media running with the most spectacular doomsday scenarios with the aim of capturing public attention.

Still fraught with “considerable uncertainties”

According to Bojanowski, although Hansens’s dramatic claims did thrust him into the pioneer role, they also contributed “to the division of society in the climate debate, which has made it more difficult to produce political solutions even today.”

He also points out that the media and alarmists continue to ignore the IPCC’s own findings on a number of fronts, such droughts, where he reports that drought scenarios as a consequence of climate change “are subject to considerable uncertainty, according to the UN climate report.”

‘Very sharp decline’ in the fires since 2001

The free-thinking Spiegel journalist also mentions how we seldom hear why fires worldwide have been on the decline over the past decades: “Since 2001, researchers have even noticed a ‘very sharp decline’ in the fires.”

“Debate in dilemma”

Bojanowski calls the media’s hope that exaggerations will motivate people to support climate change “a fallacy”. The more climate scientists hype up the science, the more people will turn away from the topic, he writes, citing sociologists.

Bojanowski’s assessment: “The debate is in a dilemma: only those who push themselves forward with hysteria, get attention.”

No new findings, old speculation

Finally the Spiegel journalist also expressed his surprise over how a recent shrill paper that announced the possibility a hot period was starting needed only 17 days to get published. Bojanowski noted that the paper “did not present any new findings” and that “it was about known speculations over so-called climate tipping points.”

Protecting climate protection

Without surprise, Bojanowski’s commentary was greeted by a less than friendly German reaction. He tweeted here of having been accused of “damaging climate protection”. Climate science dissent in Germany is not to be tolerated. Exercising dissent, or even just keeping a cool head, can make you an enemy of the cause.

 

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

17 responses to “Spiegel Science Journalist Takes Climate Heat-Hysteria Head On: “Speculation”…”Time For A Cool Examination””

  1. tom0mason

    Well said Geology major, science journalist Axel Bojanowski!
    It’s refreshing to see the German press is starting to wake to the reality that AGW, man-made climate warming, and the minor effects of atmospheric CO2 on the climate should be better debated, before they are dismissed as a failed science aberration.

  2. tom0mason

    Of course there will be the usual headless chooks wailing that Geology major, science journalist Axel Bojanowski is a “climate denier” but that is to be expected from those that just recite the cAGW mantra.

    1. Newminster

      Well, for sure they can hardly call him a science-denier; he’s probably one of the best qualified science journalists on the circuit. Perhaps a few articles like this might encourage more to put their heads above the parapet.

  3. CO2isLife

    Here is a great list to start the debate on this climate change nonsense. We need to get a widely broadcast debate on this issue so people at least know the basics and can make up their own minds.

    I dare Der Speigel to publish this. Their heads would explode.

    Comprehensive Climate Change Debating Points and Graphics; Bring It Social Media Giants. This is Your Opportunity to Do Society Some Real Good
    https://co2islife.wordpress.com/

    1. Yonason

      Very Nice, CO2 I.L., very nice.

  4. Craig A Selley

    “Firstly, Bojanowski calls the claim that we knew about global warming already back in the 1970s false, and that it was in reality first an idea that only came up in the 1980s and did not get scientifically supported until the 1990s.”

    Is not true unless he means as “settled science”. The Times in June 1976 reported the WMO that temps would rise;

    https://weatheraction.wordpress.com/2018/06/21/world-temps-likely-to-rise/

    Is worth noting that many of the early reports I’ve seen in the 1980s quote climate sensitivity from models as ~1.5-4°C. They are effectively as worthless then as they are now, we’re just several trillion lighter in our pockets. The likelihood is that very little of this money went where intended and was not audited so probably funded a whole host of nefarious off book activities*. Where did all that money go?

    The turn of the AMO+PDO is also quite sufficient to explain the MODEST and beneficial warming we’ve had since the 70s despite emissions being a worst case scenario. The AMO fits UK temps now rather well so how we go with low solar and the AMO downturn will be interesting to follow knowing of course that CO2 will explain that too – just like it was the reason my bus was late this morning 😉

    * https://blogs.dw.com/globalideas/mafia-launders-dirty-money-in-clean-energy/

    1. Yonason

      “The likelihood is that very little of this money went where intended and was not audited so probably funded a whole host of nefarious off book activities*. Where did all that money go? – Craig A. Selley

      Well, in addition to the infrastructure scams you have posted about, there is also the so called “Carbon Trading,” most of that money going to organized crime, as well.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oL-e33oaI94

      As to whatever the UN gets, well, some of us would argue they’re just a different criminal enterprise, masquerading as a respectable organization.

      PS – thanks for the link you provided.

    2. Yonason

      After looking at more from the “global ideas” blog, I see that they seem to be hard-core greenies. I’m surprised they had anything negative to say about wind power. Activists usually cover that stuff up, or deny it outright. Interesting that they write about it at all.

  5. John F. Hultquist

    ” AMO+PDO ”
    These are not defined in a similar manner and it makes no sense to add them regardless of whether or not this is meant literally or figuratively. Stick to the AMO.
    Bob Tisdale on his own blog, in e-books, and on WUWT has explained this

  6. SebastianH

    Firstly, Bojanowski calls the claim that we knew about global warming already back in the 1970s false, and that it was in reality first an idea that only came up in the 1980s and did not get scientifically supported until the 1990s. He then adds that “considerable uncertainties remain, that still have not been cleared away even until today.”

    I would not be so sure … the Australiens new that fossil fuels would affect the climate 106 (!!!) years ago:
    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CvHvSd2UAAA6y4f.jpg

    1. spike55

      Oh look, someone else other than seb was making mindless zero-science rants like 100 years ago,

      Shows how out of date and how little knowledge seb really has gained since then.

      Q1. In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically attributable to human CO2 ?

      Q2. Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE at all that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?

    2. spike55

      And WRONG AGAIN, seb

      This is not Australian.

      Your unawaremess continues unabated

      This Kiwi newspaper was WRONG then, just as you are WRONG now.

      The blanket analogy was a scientific farce back then, based on an erroneous understanding of science, just like YOU still have now.

      There is NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE of atmospheric CO2 causing warming anywhere, anytime.

      If there was, someone as manically AGW brain-hosed as you, would have posted it AGES ago.

      But you remain defiantly EVIDENCE-FREE.

      1. SebastianH

        Wow … you are really increasing your level of ranting here.

        New Zealand, sorry to have hurt your feelings: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/1912-article-global-warming/

        1. spike55

          citing snopes.. really ????.. ROFLMAO.

          Just admit your error, and get over yourself, seb

          It’s a HUGE jump to get over your arrogant ego, though, isn’t it.

          They were WRONG in 1912, just as YOU are now.

          The warming we have thankfully had out of the COLDEST period in 10,000 years, has nothing to do with CO2

          It is still a scientifically unsupportable conjecture

          EVIDENCE FREE.

          Q1. In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically attributable to human CO2 ?

          Q2. Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE at all that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?

          cue another manic EVASION or distraction from seb.

          ANYTHING to avoid answering.

          1. SebastianH

            cue another manic EVASION or distraction from seb.

            I find it funny how you try to “predict” me in your troll posts while being super predictable yourself. Yonason linked to some comment by a user named GW recently. You fit his description of the troll mob perfectly.

            Anyway, thanks for playing. I admitted to my error that I thought it was an Australian news paper.

          2. spike55

            Yep, I predicted yet another headless chook evasion of the questions.

            And you delivered. its your thing.

            The HEADLESS CHOOK routine

            Q1. In what way has the climate changed in the last 40 years, that can be scientifically attributable to human CO2 ?

            Q2. Do you have ANY EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE at all that humans have changed the global climate in ANYWAY WHATSOEVER?

  7. Spiegel Science Journalist Takes Climate Heat-Hysteria Head On: "Speculation"…"Time For A Cool Examination" | Un hobby...

    […] A. Bojanowski, August 4, 2018 in NoTricksZone/Der […]

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