Desperate Raymond Bradley Pleads With German Left-Wing, Alarmist Paper – “Hockey Stick Curve Is Robust”

Things are so bad for the warmists in the USA that they now have to hope that radical German papers will carry the day for them. This is really quite pathetic.

Yesterday German left-wing online Die Zeit, a favourite among German “intellectuals”, attempted to bring the hockey stick back from the dead by granting washed-up climate scientist Raymond Bradley an interview.

The following are excerpts of the interview. I think Al Gore or provided the answers for Bradley.

“The curve is robust”

Die Zeit poses the question: “Does the hockey stick chart need to be corrected?” Bradley answers:

No, the curve is robust. It was only one of hundreds of charts in the IPCC report. But the climate deniers in the US industry tried to bury the credibility of the IPCC by casting the curve into doubt. Some US Congressmen, who are marionettes of the oil industry, demanded that we provide detailed information about all financial information for the last few years. It hasn’t been easy with them breathing down our necks.”

I don’t know what the aim of all this is. Of course the German public hardly sees the other side of the science, which is usually in English and rarely filters through the German media. Citizens have to rely on their one-sided media, like Die Zeit.

Germany is a bit like the North Korea of climate information. Warmists are hoping Germans will remain oblivious nd keep believing in the coming doomsday. Obviously Bradley is hoping that the many duped Germans are somehow going to rescue him from the mess he and his team are in. It’s not easy being one step away from permanent disagrace.

Die Zeit then asks: “Since then, several comissions have confirmed your climate diagram. Has anyone apologised to you?” Now what does that tell you about Die Zeit and Die Zeit readers? I guess they’ve never heard of “Climategate” or the Medieval Warm Period.  (Now readers outside of Germany are probably getting an idea of just how far from reality German has drifted). Bradley answers:

No, instead the attacks continue. Michael Mann, the lead author of the curve, is still under investigation. In mid November he had to fight to keep all his e-mails during his time at the University of
Virginia from being made public.”

I’ll refrain from comment here. Bradley then goes on to say that at this stage he no longer feels threatened. But he did some years ago, as “people used the power of the state to intimidate the scientists”.

Bradley also does not expect any progress in Durban. As far as the future of US politics, he is not too optimistic, and warns:

Only when Obama gets re-elected and is supplememnted by a new majority in Congress will anything change. As long as the Tea Party dominates, it’s going to be difficult for Obama.

Die Zeit is regarded in Germany as a leading “intellectual” paper. And, if you linked to their article, you’ll notice they’re still using the old disgraced hockey stick, and believe oil companies are behind the skeptics, that sea level rise is accelerating and all the other myths.

This all reminds me of an old lone Japanese soldier marooned on a desert island, still hiding because he thinks WWII hasn’t ended yet.

Really – I’m not kidding when I say Die Zeit is an intellectual paper in Germany. Now you know the sorrowful state of German “intellectuals” (and Ray Bradley).

16 responses to “Desperate Raymond Bradley Pleads With German Left-Wing, Alarmist Paper – “Hockey Stick Curve Is Robust””

  1. GregO

    Wow, just wow. And to think that the average German thinks himself the intellectual superior to the average American. What a terrible embarrassment.

    1. DirkH

      Die Zeit would be a “progressive” medium in the US. No engineer reads it.

  2. Bernd Felsche

    Off-topic … but you should tell the English-speaking world about the “CO2-efficiency” ratings that all new cars in Germany have to carry. So every new car in Germany now comes equipped with a “Milchmädchenrechnung”.
    (To explain:,,6617000,00.html)

    Fuel-efficient, light vehicles rate more poorly than heavy vehicles that use more fuel.

    This is a meaning of the word “efficiency” with which I was previously unfamiliar. Doubtless there are thousands of bureaucrats in government and private industry that support the nonsense. Making it even a waste instead of a minor amusement.

  3. mindert eiting

    The best refutation of the hockey stick I’ve read was by Lubos Motl several months ago. Just devastating. This is a laughing stock. It’s cold and raining outside, but I have to go to the supermarket now. Thanks for this post that makes my day.

  4. DirkH
  5. cementafriend

    Look at this 3803.txt Jan2005
    date: Tue Jan 18 07:43:29 2005
    from: Phil Jones
    subject: Re: 2004
    to: “raymond s. bradley”

    We all agree on that !
    I’ll have a look when back on Friday.
    At 22:02 17/01/2005, you wrote:

    Ok, thanks–see what I posted at [1]
    I just read that Schellnhuber got an OBE!!!! I didn’t know you got those for spouting bullshit, but I guess that’s how far standards have fallen. Pretty amazing…

  6. slimething

    Penn State knew about the child rape/abuse occurring and did nothing.

    There is a saying:
    “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. ”

    Penn State officials did nothing, so are they good men? What makes anyone think these same men (and women?) will do anything with respect to Mann or anything else that could “tarnish” the university’s “image” and threaten its sources of funding?

  7. Bray Badly

    This is the same Ray Bradley, who wrote this, in email 3373.txt

    I don’t think Mike is thinking of coupled AOGCMs here, which would be ideal, but mostly energy balance models and MICs, and it’s hard to use these to look at anything but the very largest scales. Furthermore, the model output is very much determined by the time series of forcing that is selected, and the model sensitivity which essentially scales the range. Mike only likes these because they seem to match his idea of what went on in the last millennium, whereas he would savage them if they did not.
    Also–& I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year “reconstruction”.

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