The online leftist Die Tageszeitung (TAZ) from Berlin has an essay by Stefan Rahmstorf, who attacks Dr Fritz Vahrenholt, head of RWE Innogy, for his comments in a December essay that casts doubt on man-made climate change appearing in the somwhat more conservative Die Welt from Hamburg.Interestingly, instead of appearing in the Science section, Rahmstorf’s rant appears in the Debate section. Is that a sign?
First Rahmstorf, praises Germany for carrying out a “scientific, factual discussion of climate science”, unlike in the USA, where he says:
It’s different in the USA: There the conservative Tea Party movement has proclaimed that man-made climate change is made up, and large parts of the economy are lobbying using dubious ‘climate sceptic’ propositions.”
Rahmstorf is visibly worried that this “dubious climate scepticism” may be spreading to Germany, and goes after RWE Vahrenholt. In his Die Welt essay, Vahrenholt assigns the blame for the cold winters – writing:
It’s the sun, stupid!”
Rahmstorf, however does not believe the sun has an impact on the earth’s climate, and thinks it’s all due to a few molecules of CO2. And so Rahmstorf attributes the recent cold winters to miscalibrated human perception:
The winter appears cold because we had gotten used to the mild winters.”
and misleadingly reframes Mojib Latif’s 2008 predictions of cooling:
No serious scientist doubts global warming, and certainly not Mojib Latif, whose quote has nothing to do with the cold winters. It’s old and stems from his model projections of a temporary cooling, which in the meantime we know failed to materialise.”
Latif made his cooling projections in 2008, and so are not that old (he predicted warm-winters back in 2000). And who can say that the cold winters aren’t related to his projections of cooling? Latif’s projections look to be true, and likely will be true for the new, current decade.
Rahmstorf then quotes, defends and explains Kevin Trenberth’s infamous “it’s travesty we can’t account for the missing heat” statement, saying it was taken out of context and that Trenberth meant something else.
Rahmstorf acknowledges the solar correlation with regards to the Russian heat wave and flood in Pakistan, but claims that this correlation is very weak, and quotes Trenberth again:
‘Without global warming, these events would not have happened’.”
Now that’s the “scientific, factual discussion” that PIK scientists and the government like to praise. Of course, anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of science knows that blaming a couple of isolated weather events on global warming is preposterous. But what is preposterous in climate science passes as “scientific, factual” at the PIK.
Rahmstorf takes offence to the harsh criticism that Vahrenholt fired at PIK science, and thinks sceptics give the sun too great of a role in climate change. He says Vahrenholt is silent about the fact…(emphasis added)
…that also during the largest solar minimum of the “Little Ice Age” during the so-called Maunder Minimum of the late 17th century the global temperature was only a few tenths of a degree cooler than before and after, and that our model reproduces the temperature back then very well, otherwise we would have not used it for our future projections.”
A few tenths of a degree Celsius? That’s the difference between having vineyards in England and a frozen Thames? PIK science is moving beyond preposterous.
Rahmstorf ends with a comment on climate debate:
Those who wish to sow doubt on the urgency of climate protection, really have to work hard to twist the facts. However, the climate crisis can be overcome only by having an honest debate.”