Viral Video: Retired Climate Scientist Slams ZDF German Public Television Climate Reporting

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

As the heat and drought peaked across northern Europe in early August, the media became chock-full of climate doom stories of how the heat and drought were all sure signs of a tipping planet, always citing the ever reliable doomsday scientists.

Right in the middle of the hysteria was German public television, such as ZDF. On August 3 in its late evening editon Claus Kleber of the center-left national broadcaster delivered a report on what’s behind the heat.

Video rebuttal viewed over 340,000 times.

What follows is a video of the ZDF report, followed by a rebuttal from retired climate professor Werner Kirstein. So far it has been viewed more than 340,000 times:

In the report in the first half of the video, the ZDF asks about the heat and then explains that the hot and dry is caused by a blocking high resulting from a stagnating jet stream, which in turn is caused by climate change that may be occurring “at an enormous speed”.

To their credit, ZDF does mention that such years have happened in the past, such as in the year 1540, but called that event a real outlier, and then made this year’s heat sound as if was on par with 1540 (it was not even close) and that these events were getting more frequent.

The reporter states (1:25): “This year however,  it could be a re-occurring event, at least that’s the fear of some climate scientists. The reason for the high temperatures? The Jet Stream.”

The report then explains how a warming Arctic is causing the Jet Stream to weird out, stall and thus lead to heat waves: “And not only here [in Germany], but all over the northern hemisphere,” the reporter says (2:13).

Jet stream phenomenon: No consensus among scientists

Why is the jet stream stalling and leading to heat waves? The ZDF at least here reports, citing Prof. Markus Rex of the Alfred Wegener Institute: “There’s no consensus, but some scientists say it could be a consequence of global warming.”

Prof. Kirstein blasts ZDF for being very superficial

The video next introduces comments written by climate change skeptic scientist Werner Kirstein, who responded in writing to ZDF report (3:50). Kirstein first mentions that ZDF reported on the severe drought of 1540 “only very superficially”, adding:

Namely you failed to mention that the hot and dry year 1540 (from February 28 to September 19) was by far much more extreme than now in 2018. For example over that long period in Zurich it rained only four times. In Milan it it was completely dry for five months.”

Kirstein also cites the years 79 A.D., 1387 and 1473 as years as being”extremely dry and hot” and that “people were able to walk across a dried out Danube.”

Climate scientists “only understand climate models using CO2”

Next Kirstein asks the ZDF and Claus Kleber why they only ask self-annointed climate scientists who “only understand climate modeling using CO2, but don’t understand anything at all about climate science”.

Misleading the public

Kirstein accuses German ZDF public television of a reporting that’s full of gaps and manipulatively selective:

You continue to remain with the ZDF method of leaving out information and thus provide more impetus for the politically wanted climate change. Not with a lying press, but with a highly selective press that’s full of gaps you present the news, and perhaps wonder why you are indiscriminately liked only by viewers in retirement homes.”

Finally, Kirstein reminds ZDF moderator Claus Kleber:

There have been 12 hot and cold summers – without any detectable regularity – since 1900. Research and inform yourself properly before you anchor false impressions and a false climate policy in the minds of the viewers.”

Other related stories:

Climate Professor Says German Climate Science Hyped By Sloppy, Politically Corrupted Media!

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

32 responses to “Viral Video: Retired Climate Scientist Slams ZDF German Public Television Climate Reporting”

  1. SebastianH

    Video rebuttal viewed over 340,000 times.

    What follows is a video of the ZDF report, followed by a rebuttal from retired climate professor Werner Kirstein.

    Werner Kirstein is a joke. Too many interviews with false information and presentations for “EIKE”. This guy is a disinformer through and through and apparently really believes in the BS he promotes. Remember this gem? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPVT7iihMTs (at minute 5 he talks about what some of you seem to believe too … human CO2 only making up 3% of the total increase, just like Ed Berry / Harde)

    1. Kenneth Richard

      Werner Kirstein is a joke. Too many interviews with false information and presentations for “EIKE”. This guy is a disinformer through and through and apparently really believes in the BS he promotes.

      Well, if the venerable SebastianH thinks Dr Kirstein is “a joke” and “disinformer through and through” who promotes “BS”, then it must be so. Thank you for the substantive rebuttal.

      at minute 5 he talks about what some of you seem to believe too … human CO2 only making up 3% of the total increase

      SebastianH, the IPCC has the anthropogenic contribution to total emissions at 4.3%.

      The natural versus anthropogenic CO2 emission ratio as of 2013 from IPCC AR5, Figure 6.1:
      http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig6-1.jpg

      Natural emissions total: 198.2 GtC (primarily 78.4 GtC from ocean outgassing, and 118.7 GtC from total respiration and fire)
      Anthropogenic emissions total: 8.9 GtC (7.8 GtC is fossil fuels, 1.1 is land use changes)
      Ratio in terms of 100% total 207.1 = 95.7 to 4.3

      Earth’s soil is releasing roughly nine times more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than all human activities combined” ( rel=”nofollow”>Carey et al., 2017)

      Reich et al., 2016
      http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature17142.html
      Plant respiration results in an annual flux of carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere that is six times as large as that due to the emissions from fossil fuel burning

      Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate (textbook)
      http://www.langtoninfo.com/web_content/9780521767187_frontmatter.pdf
      Together, emission from ocean and land sources (∼150 GtC/yr) is two orders of magnitude greater than CO2 emission from combustion of fossil fuel. These natural sources are offset by natural sinks, of comparable strength. However, because they are so much stronger, even a minor imbalance between natural sources and sinks can overshadow the anthropogenic component of CO2 emission.” pg. 546

      1. SebastianH

        at minute 5 he talks about what some of you seem to believe too … human CO2 only making up 3% of the total increase

        SebastianH, the IPCC has the anthropogenic contribution to total emissions at 4.3%.

        So let’s try it without naming a certain person what he is. Kenneth, do you realize at least that you reply is missing the point? I know, the difference is subtle, but there is a difference between a percentage of an increase of a variable (CO2 concentration) and a percentage of a total of another variable (CO2 emissions).

        Yes or no?

        1. spike55

          ZERO evidence that the MOSTLY NATURAL and HIGHLY BENFICIAL rise in atmospheric CO2 causes ANYTHING except enhance plant growth.

          Science means NOTHING to you, does it seb.

          Just attention seeking TROLLING.

        2. Kenneth Richard

          there is a difference between a percentage of an increase of a variable (CO2 concentration) and a percentage of a total of another variable (CO2 emissions). Yes or no?

          Correct. And you misrepresented what Harde wrote in his paper, which was actually just repeating the IPCC value (4.3% of emissions). So yes, Harde made the distinction in his paper, you falsely claimed he didn’t, and I pointed that out with my comment. In other words, I was correcting you.

          he talks about what some of you seem to believe too … human CO2 only making up 3% of the total increase, just like Ed Berry / Harde

          Harde, 2017
          http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818116304787
          “The anthropogenic contribution to the actual CO2 concentration is found to be 4.3% [the IPCC value], its fraction to the CO2 increase over the Industrial Era is 15% and the average residence time 4 years.”

          1. SebastianH

            And you misrepresented what Harde wrote in his paper, which was actually just repeating the IPCC value (4.3% of emissions). So yes, Harde made the distinction in his paper, you falsely claimed he didn’t, and I pointed that out with my comment. In other words, I was correcting you.

            Nope.

            “The anthropogenic contribution to the actual CO2 concentration is found to be 4.3% [the IPCC value]

            Nope, the IPCC value is the fraction of human emissions vs. natural emissions, not the contribution to the actual CO2 concentration.

            its fraction to the CO2 increase over the Industrial Era is 15% and the average residence time 4 years.”

            A fundamental misunderstanding of residence time vs. retention time which leads to the nonsense that thsoe two “scientists” claim to be the case.

            I think you are misunderstanding this topic as well. Otherwise it would be crystal clear to you that you made a mistake above in interpreting what the IPCC actually says and what people like Kirstein (or Ed Berry or Harde) say.

          2. Kenneth Richard

            Nope, the IPCC value is the fraction of human emissions vs. natural emissions, not the contribution to the actual CO2 concentration.

            Where do you think Harde got the 4.3% from if not from this IPCC AR5 breakdown?

            The natural versus anthropogenic CO2 emission ratio as of 2013 from IPCC AR5, Figure 6.1:
            http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig6-1.jpg

            Natural emissions total: 198.2 GtC (primarily 78.4 GtC from ocean outgassing, and 118.7 GtC from total respiration and fire)
            Anthropogenic emissions total: 8.9 GtC (7.8 GtC is fossil fuels, 1.1 is land use changes)
            Ratio in terms of 100% total: 207.1 = 95.7 to 4.3

            Harde, 2017: The IPCC estimates, that from this total rate a fraction EA = 32.7 Pg / yr (8.9 PgC/yr: 7.8 PgC/yr fossil fuels +1.1 PgC/yr net land use change) results from anthropogenic sources, while the rest with EN = 727.3 Pg / yr originates from natural sources (see Fig. 1). So, the anthropogenic part is just 4.3 % of the total emission rate.”

            Harde makes the distinction between the percentage of total emissions (4.3% per the IPCC) and the percentage of the increase (15%) in the paper. You claim he didn’t make that distinction. You were wrong.

          3. spike55

            Poor seb,

            You were NEVER able to provide ANYTHING except baseless anti-science opinion to counter Harde or Berry.

            Just like you are TOTALLY INCAPABLE of providing any evidence of CO2 warming.

            Your fundamental and total lack of understanding of basically anything to do with science or physics, is a marvel to watch, as you attempt to blather your way though to some sort of rational statement.. and fail miserably. 🙂

            Please keep digging deeper. :-).

    2. spike55

      You have never been able to provide any scientific counter to Berry or Harde.

      ZERO EVIDENCE to counter Kirstein , either

      Your mindless blethering is NOT a counter to anything..

      .. but is all you have left to you..

      Natural increases in atmospheric CO2 far outweigh human contributions to the TOTALLY BENEFICAL rise in atmospheric CO2.

      Jet stream wobbles have happened regularly, they are NOTHING to do with the fantasy myth of human CO2 forcing.

    3. spike55

      The REAL idiots are the anti-science fools that think humans are responsible for all the slight but highly beneficial atmospheric CO2, despite having ZERO EVIDENCE to support their cluelessness.

      The same clueless people that think CO2 can warm the atmosphere or the oceans and melt polar or glacial ice,

      always.. TOTALLY EVIDENCE FREE.

      Everything said by Werner Kirstein is PROVABLE TRUE.

      no amount of mindless empty ranting from seb can change that.

      1. Bitter&twisted

        I’m beginning to think our obnoxious troll isn’t a troll.
        Rather it is a Russian bot set up to sow discord and undermine climate realism for the purposes of keeping Western Europe reliant on Russian gas.

  2. Yonason

    The heat was forecast. It’s easily explained by standard meteorology, not phony “climate science.”
    https://patriotpost.us/opinion/57393-europe-heat-wave-questioning-mans-attribution

    (No, not all climate science is “phony,” just the part that claims that CO2 is the “control knob” that makes everything hotter, colder, wetter, drier, windier, calmer, and whatever else you don’t like about anything.)

  3. Yonason
  4. Bruce of Newcastle

    Why is the jet stream stalling and leading to heat waves?

    ZDF doesn’t seem to recall the last time we saw such events was in 2010, with the great Moscow heat wave. That was at the bottom of the solar cycle minimum. We are now back in similar solar activity conditions as the next solar minimum approaches.

    Mike Lockwood, who is an IPCC lead author and solar scientist linked the 2010 jet stream blocking events with low solar activity. The Rossby waves slow down and become more sinuous, so we get alternating patches of hot and cold, depending which side of the jet stream you’re on.

    No climate scientist can explain how CO2 can cause jet stream blocking events to occur each 11 years. Look up guys.

    1. Yonason

      Thanks Bruce. Nice material.

      I wonder how that denier article got past the gate keepers at the BEEB?

      And surprisingly (to me anyway) there’s no reference to CO2 or carbon, or to “climate change” in the body of the article – BUT the editor preemptively inserts a pic of a quite sun, with a link at the bottom of the legend to another article entitled “‘No sun link’ to climate change.”

      Nope. No subliminal messaging there.

      sigh

    2. spike55

      Nice wobbly jet stream in 1977 too,

      https://s19.postimg.cc/71bs8r6o3/jet_stream_1977.png

      and apparently around 1940.

      Must have been human CO2. 😉

    3. SebastianH

      So, a warming Arctic has nothing to do with jet streams then? I see …

      All those articles about this phenomenon must be wrong then.

      1. spike55

        Warming Arctic is NOTHING to do with CO2.

        You KNOW there is absolutely ZERO EVIDENCE of that, seb.

        The ice extent is just part or the AMO cycle.

        It is obvious that you are DENIAL of these NATURAL cycles.

        https://s19.postimg.cc/vws4z68s3/arctic_temp.png

        1. SebastianH

          You know spike55, if it were an internal thing that periodically warms one place, then the total heat content in both oceans and atmosphere should remain constant, right?

          So how does both increasing not make it pretty obvious to you what is happening? Why are you trying so hard to ignore actual science and measurements?

          1. spike55

            So, ZERO EVIDENCE again, I see seb

            Just seeking attention, poor petal ?

            Seb seems IGNORANT of solar energy and the FACT that CO2 cannot cause oceans to warm.

            At least he now pretends to comprehends basic cycles like the AMO

            Presents ZERO-EVIDENCE of any CO2 warming of anything, anywhere, anytime

            Where are these measurements and science that show that the wobbly jet stream is ANYTHING BUT NATURAL, seb.

            Cure another headless chook routine

          2. spike55

            DENIAL of the Grand Solar Maximum.

            DENIAL that ocean temps are FAR lower than most of the first 9000 years of the Holocene.

            Why do you continue to ignore science and provide ZERO measurements of CO2 warming or any other effect of CO2, seb?

            You are such a joke of a troll, seb 🙂

      2. Bruce of Newcastle

        Seb – Any time the jet stream comes up from the south you can see Arctic warming occur. I often see such patterns (I have the CRWS site bookmarked – it’s a good site with jet stream maps archived for many years).

        Since low solar activity is causing the sinuous jet stream I don’t see why there should be especial cause for alarm when this happens. Nothing we humans can do can stop the Sun doing what it does.

        As for decadal Arctic sea ice changes, the AMO runs on a ~60 year cycle. Again not due to CO2. As you can see the AMO is still near its latest peak, so Arctic ice is at the low point in its cycle.

  5. Yonason

    “Jet stream phenomenon: No consensus among scientists”

    Of course, meteorologists and scientists who know a bit about meteorology know what’s going on.

    “There is frequently cross-equatorial flow at jet stream altitudes, and that flow can connect up with a subtropical jet stream. But it has always happened, and always will happen, with or without the help of humans. Sometimes the flows connect up with each other and make it look like a larger flow structure is causing the jet stream to flow from one hemisphere to the other, but it’s in no way unprecedented. “ – Roy Spencer
    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/06/climate-system-scientist-claims-jet-stream-crossing-the-equator-is-unprecedented/

  6. Retired Climate Scientist Slams Germany’s Alarmist Media – Newsfeed – Hasslefree allsorts

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

  7. M E

    A very interesting article.
    Thanks.
    BTW remember Trolls are only interested in annoying people.
    That is their motive. and their joy

    He may just be a bored Russian journalist annoying people on this blog while using his tablet at his morning coffeebreak.Read Sputnik news for similar comments to those of Sebastian.
    I’m not convinced he is a Marxist Leninist who feels compelled to sow disinformation.
    Perhaps another hobby suggests itself?

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