Yesterday I wrote about the latest issue of FOCUS news magazine HERE.
I just picked up the new issue, out today, and read it. It’s an unmistakable departure from usual doom and catastropheism, which had generated so much of the fear and urgency needed to justify the rush to reckless policy making and profiteering.
FOCUS shows that the urgency is undue and that it’s time to get back to rationality, and away from all the mass hysteria that has taken policymaking on a ride on the crazy train.
Part 1: It’s getting warmer – that’s good!
In its first part, FOCUS describes the Sahara region as it was thousands of years ago – an area rich in wildlife and plants where humans settled and even built a 500 meter long by 5 meter wide protective wall 1000 years before Christ. Then came a climate catastrophe (naturally of course), in the form of cooling and drying. The once green paradise dried up into a desert wasteland. Today the Sahara desert, thanks to warming, is greening up again. Says Stefan Kröpelin, geo-archaeologist of the University of Cologne, who has been researching the region for 30 years now:
At the southern edge, vegetation in most places has been moving northwards since the end of the 1980s. Global warming here has been a blessing. If the trend continues at this pace, the Sahara will be green again in a few hundred years.”
The Sahara is just one example of the advantages of global warming. FOCUS also writes:
More and more renowned scientists are saying climate change does not lead to only catastrophes, rather it also brings with it rich advantages for both man and nature. But this will hardly play a role in Cancun. Politicians, scientists and media are too fixated on the problems of the future – from sea level rise, to storms, to the spread of tropical diseases (see page 86).
Studies worldwide show that many of the widespread horror scenarios are baseless.”
FOCUS continues to believe the science underpinning the theory that global temperatures will rise 2 – 4°C by the end of the century, and this being due to man’s activities. Here, FOCUS naively ignores the impacts of oceanic and solar cycles. But even so, it has, at least in this article, truly departed from the planet-is-going-to-hell-in-a-hand-basket narrative. That’s huge progress for traditional German journalism – make no mistake about it.
And what does Stefan Kröpelin say about climate models for the future?
I trust the data from the earth’s history more than any climate model.”
Josef Reichholf, Professor Emeritus of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at the University of Munich speaks on biodiversity.
The earth’s history shows that warm periods are characterized by high levels of biodiversity. In general, the rule is: the warmer it is, the more biodiversity you get.”
FOCUS then writes about the warm and cold cycles the earth has experienced, in particular the ice ages that have occurred every 100,000 years and the massive ice sheets that once covered many parts of the globe. This part really puts the earth and climate in the right perspective. Readers see that things have been far more extreme than the puny half-degree fluctuations we are biting our nails over today. The earth does change naturally, and often dramatically.
FOCUS also writes about the Holocene optimums and minimums, and the challenges and benefits that man derived from them. Climate has always been changing. The Vikings even settled in Greenland in the year 982, FOCUS points out.
FOCUS also puts CO2 in the spotlight and discovers that it is not that “climate-killing” gas everyone has been making it out to be. Indeed, the gas is actually a fertilizer for plants. It makes the planet greener. It boosts agricultural yields, which means more food to feed the world.
CO2 is often called a climate poison or climate killer, but: ‘It is an essential building block for photosynthesis, and thus the basis for all life,’ says Hans-Joacheim Weigel, Director of the Johann Heinrich von Thünnen Institute for Biodiversity.”
Part 2: The 7 scourges of the end time
FOCUS then looks at the 7 climate scourges alleged will occur as the world ends, or something, and debunks them one by one. Here I think FOCUS did a good job – a must read. Here I summarize with just a few key words.
FOCUS (in a few words):
1. Islands will sink: “Satellite photos show they are not”
2. Disappearing glaciers. FOCUS writes: “not a new phenomena”
3. Melting of the ice caps: “Highly improbable – very high temperatures would be needed”
4. Gulf Stream collapse: “NASA shows it’s not true”
5. More storms: “Chris Landsea shows it won’t be so.”
6. Polar bears will die: “They are growing in number and are highly adaptable – no big problem.”
7. Tropical diseases will spread: “DDT ban was a cause. And Paul Reiter says it’s BS.”
Part 3: Who’s who in climate science?
One interesting section of the FOCUS report was the part on who’s who in climate science? They list 11 names:
1. Rejendra Pachauri: “calls to resign”
2. Michael Mann: “doubts on his methodology”
3. James Hansen: “warning of AGW since the 1980s”
4. John Christy, Atmospheric Sciences:
Analyzes climate data from satellites at the University of Alabama. Is against alarmist statements from other scientists who warn of catastrophic temperature increases and sea level rises, and considers climate protection measures unnecessary.”
5. Stephen McIntyre, mining specialist:
The Canadian analyzed Mann’s hockey stick curve together with economist Ross McKitrick, who both found deficiencies in the methodology, which put the curve’s shape into question, as well as the claim that never in the last 1000 years has it been warmer than today. McIntyre became known when Mann refused to reveal his data. He is active with his blog Climate Audit.”
6. Stefan Rahmstorf: “A lead author of the IPCC 4AR report and many publications”
7. Björn Lomborg: “Recommends adaptation”
8. Mojib Latif: “Projected a pause in global warming”
9. Richard Lindzen:
Researches at MIT and one of the most prolific skeptics. He says the earth is never in equilibrium, and for that reason natural changes such as ocean currents or atmospheric cycles can explain the warming. For this reason it is senseless to attempt to fight climate change.”
10. Nicholas Stern: “Inaction is more expensive than action.”
11. Paul Crutzen: “Advocates geo-engineering.”
So much for the ballyhooed consensus and settled science. This FOCUS article shows that the science is hotly disputed, and more importantly, that the catastrophe scenarios are hysteria, and that warmer climates would bring real benefits.
For German journalism, this to me represents a watershed event. This piece breaks a lot of taboos in Germany. The reactions indeed will be worth following. Expect hellfire and vitriol from the greenshirts.
I wish I had time to write more, but this I think is a good overview of the extensive 14-page FOCUS piece. Go out and buy it.