Body Blow To German Global Warming Movement! Major Media Outlets Unload On “CO2 Lies!”

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter
Page 2 story in Bild today! The first of a series.

“THE CO2 LIES … pure fear-mongering … should we blindly trust the experts?”

That’s what Germany’s leading daily Bild (see photo) wrote in its print and online editions today, on the very day that renowned publisher Hoffmann & Campe officially released a skeptic book – one written by a prominent socialist and environmental figure.

This is huge. More than I ever could have possibly imagined. And more is coming in the days ahead! The Bild piece was just the first of a series.

Mark this as the date that Germany’s global warming movement took a massive body blow.

Today, not one, but two of Germany’s most widely read news media published comprehensive skeptical climate science articles in their print and online editions, coinciding with the release of a major climate skeptical book, Die kalte Sonne (The Cold Sun).

Germany has now plunged into raucus discord on the heated topic of climate change

What has set it all off? One of the fathers of Germany’s modern green movement, Professor Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt, a social democrat and green activist, decided to author a climate science skeptical book together with geologist/paleontologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning. Vahrenholt’s skepticism started when he was asked to review an IPCC report on renewable energy. He found hundreds of errors. When he pointed them out, IPCC officials simply brushed them aside. Stunned, he asked himself, “Is this the way they approached the climate assessment reports?”

Vahrenholt decided to do some digging. His colleague Dr. Lüning also gave him a copy of Andrew Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion. He was horrified by the sloppiness and deception he found. Persuaded by Hoffmann & Campe, he and Lüning decided to write the book. Die kalte Sonne cites 800 sources and has over 80 charts and figures. It examines and summarizes the latest science.

Conclusion: climate catastrophe is called off

The science was hyped. The book started hitting the bookshops today and has already hit no. 1 on the Amazon.de list for environment books. Indications show that it will climb very high in the overall bestseller charts. It’s published by a renowned publishing house and is now sending shock waves through the German climate science establishment. The first printing will produce 20,000 copies. I expect they will sell out rather quickly.

Today Germany’s national tabloid Bild (which has a whopping circulation of 16 million) devoted half of page 2 on an article called:

THE CO2 LIE

Renowned team of scientists claim the climate catastrophe is fear-mongering by politics

The widely read Bild will follow with the rest of the series in the days ahead. In part I today Bild presents “What the IPCC of the UN doesn’t tell you.” Bild asks “what if the IPCC is wrong? Can we really blindly trust these experts? Are they really independent?”

Bild then writes:

The phenomenal prognoses of heat from the IPCC are pure fear-mongering.”

The Bild series is sure to cause radical environmentalists to seethe and lash out. Expect an all-out assault in the days and weeks ahead. Already the reaction from activists has been swift and virulent – though they have yet to read the book.

They never wanted the debate – and now the dam has broken

And the floods of skepticism are sweeping over the country. Worse, Germany’s flagship weekly news magazine Der Spiegel today also featured a 4-page exclusive interview with Vahrenholt, where he repeated that the IPCC has ignored a large part of climate science and that IPCC scientists exaggerated the impact of CO2 on climate. Vahrenholt said that by extending the known natural cycles of the past into the future, and taking CO2’s real impact into effect, we should expect a few tenths of a degree of cooling.

At a press conference today in Berlin, Vahrenholt, Lüning and publisher Hoffmann & Campe introduced the book and answered reporters’ questions. When asked why Hoffmann & Campe decided to publish “such a book”, the spokesman simply answered that the time is right – and there’s a real audience for the book. Even the weather timing was right! Germany is now experiencing it’s worst cold snap in 26 years. That makes it hard to deny lack of warming.

It needs to be pointed out Vahrenholt and Lüning are not skeptics; they are lukewarmers who have not been able to find any evidence of a coming climate catastrophe. They believe that man should switch to renewables, but do so in a rational manner: “Work fast, but don’t hurry.”

Skeptic readers should not think that the book will fortify their existing skepticism of CO2 causing warming. The authors agree it does. but have major qualms about the assumed positive CO2-related feed-backs and believe the sun plays a far greater role in the whole scheme of things.

The book cites more than 800 sources – including the latest peer-reviewed literature. It includes more than 80 graphics that clearly illustrate that all is not well with the claims made by alarmist science. It is written so that laymen can easily digest the material and it provides a comprehensive overview of the science and where it stands today.

The book has also infuriated the AGW leadership in Germany. For example, academia. University of Osnabrück took the step of dis-inviting Professor Vahrenholt who was scheduled to give a speech on February 8. The University claimed that Vahrenholt’s skeptical views were “provocative”. Also the centre-left SPD party, where Vahrenholt is a member, has been deafeningly silent.

This cat is out of the bag – and it’s not going back in.

The authors have set up a website for Die kalte Sonne here.

 

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

200 responses to “Body Blow To German Global Warming Movement! Major Media Outlets Unload On “CO2 Lies!””

  1. New German anti AGW book and extensive media coverage

    […] CO2 LIES … pure fear-mongering … should we blindly trust the experts?” see here for the original article.To […]

  2. DOT

    This blog post is of the same quality as the “Bild” newspaper. Fact-free.

    Listen guys, everybody understands that you are nuts in the US. That’s ok. Just keep it to yourselves, and don’t try to drag decent countries into it, ok?

    1. Icarus62

      DOT, this is true. Some people like to dismiss AGW regardless of the facts. If you give them the facts, they just cry “fraud!”. If you show them that multiple reviews found that no such fraud occurred, they just take it as evidence that the conspiracy is even bigger than they thought.

      It’s quite hard to reason an AGW denier out of their position when they didn’t adopt it by reason in the first place, but rather by ideology or the profit motive.

      1. DirkH

        DOT, and Icarus, all that you have are the climate models. Once again: READ THE IPCC AR4. They have no predictive skill, as the IPCC itself makes clear.

        If you have a factual argument to make, MAKE IT. But don’t point to the N-th time Hansen cites himself with a model based study based on a model based study.

        The positive water vapor feedback is a lie. Get over it. It has not been observed anywhere on the planet.

  3. Andres Valencia

    I have posted a second article on Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov, Dr. Sc.
    Head of Space Research Laboratory of the Pulkovo Observatory,
    Head of the Russian/Ukrainian Joint Project Astrometria:

    “Bicentennial Decrease of the Total Solar Irradiance Leads to Unbalanced Thermal Budget of the Earth and the Little Ice Age”.

    “From early 90s we observe bicentennial decrease in both the TSI and the portion of its energy absorbed by the Earth.
    The Earth as a planet will henceforward have negative balance in the energy budget which will result in the temperature drop in approximately 2014.
    Due to increase of albedo and decrease of the greenhouse gases atmospheric concentration the absorbed portion of solar energy and the influence of the greenhouse effect will additionally decline.
    The influence of the consecutive chain of feedback effects which can lead to additional drop of temperature will surpass the influence of the TSI decrease.
    The onset of the deep bicentennial minimum of TSI is expected in 2042±11, that of the 19th Little Ice Age in the past 7500 years – in 2055±11.”

    http://www.oarval.org/ClimateChangeBW.htm

  4. Peter B

    I do hope nobody is going to let Angela Merkel live down her promise, along with Gordon Brown, “not to allow the temperature increase in the next 100 years to be higher than 2C” – or something like that.

  5. Two more scientists change sides in the AGW debate « The Greenroom

    […] on to the latest high profile defections: One of the fathers of Germany’s modern green movement, Professor Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt, a social […]

  6. Body Blow To German Global Warming Movement! Major Media Outlets Unload On ‘CO2 Lies!’ | JunkScience.com

    […] reports: “THE CO2 LIES … pure fear-mongering … should we blindly trust the […]

  7. jipebe29

    Endlich!

    In France, unfortunatly, our media are always lying and disinform the citizen… and if you say that IPCC is mainly involved in politics, and that science it used is bad science, you are immediatly attacked and you are insulted as “denier”.

    But I hope it will change in the near future…

    Wiederlesen!…

  8. jipebe29

    If you understand French, read this document from Marcel Leroux :

    http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2/Echanges-meridiens-Chang-clim.pdf

    Bis bald!….

  9. Sparks

    @Icarus62

    Would you like to see all scientific opposition to AGW silenced?
    That would be a very undemocratic position to take, the debate on AGW based climate change has been a one sided debate and the establishment of AGW have been behaving like Tyrants for far too long.

    FACT: The “IPCC scientists exaggerated the impact of CO2 on climate.” This information is becoming available to the public and the lies are being exposed, the rise in skepticism is the result of the public beginning to understand the issue including it’s dishonest re-branding of AGW to “Climate Change”, Carbon taxes, fraudulent carbon markets and even the Freudian rhetoric of Freezing winters being caused by Man Made Global Warming, You would have to be a fool to blindly accept the Idea that Man made CO2 (a small addition to a trace gas) that plants and animals need, somehow overwhelms the power of the Sun and all or any effect other gases including water vapor and the two major gases have on the atmosphere.

    Icarus62 It’s now becoming clear to everyone that You and the dwindling group of other proponents of the AGW climate change argument don’t even stand up to the smallest of criticisms, why should you be taken seriously?

  10. Icarus62

    “Sparks
    @Icarus62

    Would you like to see all scientific opposition to AGW silenced?”

    No, just the unscientific opposition.

    1. Sparks

      Selectively calling your scientific opposition “unscientific” is an attempt to silence their views and it’s this type of tyrannical, undemocratic behavior I was referring to above.

      Can’t you see the nature of the position you have taken?

      1. Icarus62

        If I say “It’s fine to drink a gallon of bleach, it can’t possibly do you any harm at all”, not only is that unscientific (because there is no doubt that it’s false) but it’s also dangerous, irresponsible, reckless and probably prosecutable. The same applies to AGW denial.

        1. Sparks

          Being Skeptical of a scientific view or having scientific differences is not a crime, maybe in your fanciful undemocratic world it is, but certainly not in mine, we all have a right to asses the evidence (or lack of evidence) and adapt our views as the evidence changes. I will point out what is a prosecutable offense, knowingly producing fraudulent information and or data through public finances.

          Just because you see a bottle of bleach, it doesn’t mean someone is going to come along and drink it.

          1. Icarus62

            “scientific differences”, exactly – what you see in the AGW denial hoax is not scientific differences but a blatant and very well funded effort to deceive the public. The deniers lost the scientific argument long ago so they avoid genuine science and focus on lies and slander. Therein lies the shockingly unethical nature of the hoax. It’s a betrayal, a reckless bid to protect fossil fuel profits regardless of the appalling cost to civilisation.

          2. Ed Caryl

            Icarus62,
            Go to http://www.drroyspencer.com/
            read everything on his blog, then come back here and apologize. Pay special attention to what Dr. Spencer has to say about CO2 sensitivity.

    2. DirkH

      I completely missed that – Icarus is a fiend of Free Speech. Thanks, Icarus, for showing your true colors. So when I call you a totalitarian, it is no more an insult but characterizes your position accurately.

      1. Icarus62

        Does ‘free speech’ include the right to knowingly and wilfully deceive the public, to expose them to danger that they might otherwise seek to avoid?

        1. DirkH

          You don’t even know what Free Speech means? Were your parents totalitarian as well so you didn’t learn the concept?

  11. Charles

    I suppose they will be subject to arrest in Australia.

  12. wodan

    @ icarus62
    The bleach statement you use as example is a scientific statement because it can be tested . When tested it turns out to be false. So now we know.
    All statements by the IPCC are unscientific because they cannot be tested, they are full of ‘is expected to’, ‘is predicted’, ‘may’, ‘can’, ‘model projections show’, ‘as long as’, ‘is uncertain’, ‘so-and-so proposed that’, ‘would’, ‘may result in’, ‘could lead to’, ‘may change’. These examples are taken from IPCC 2007 AR4 WG1 sections 7.3.4.3 and .4 . IPCC does not satisfy the principle of falsifiability or testability as required from good science. Their statements are untestable. Besides their statements are not peer-reviewed but pals-reviewed, and the pals are from Greenpeace and WWF. IPCC is managed by a mafia who were once scientists but degenerated into cherrypickers of the AGW flavoured science literature at the expense of the non-AGW flavour. That made the IPCC pseudo- scientists. It did not affect their self-esteem, after all they enjoyed the salary and the travel perks instead.

  13. Rob Painting

    “His colleague Dr. Lüning also gave him a copy of Andrew Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion. He was horrified by the sloppiness and deception he found.”

    Doesn’t surprise me at all, I’ve only visited Montford’s blog a couple of times and came to the same conclusion.

  14. Icarus62

    Spencer is a [-snip]. He has nothing of any use to say about climate science.

    1. DirkH

      I think Icarus62 is a desperate CAGW gravy train rider. He has no proof for his accusations and doesn’t present any evidence.

      1. Icarus62

        Spencer and Christy were caught out fiddling the UAH series to make it look like there was very little global warming. The scientific community forced them to admit it, and correct it. That’s a matter of public record. They got away with it for about 10 years before being exposed, IIRC. The only reason anyone would believe frauds like that is if it’s something they want to hear.

        1. DirkH

          The satellite instruments had calibration problems. The problems were not anticipated so they went undetected for a while. It was not deliberate fraud.

          1. Icarus62

            It was fraud. They did everything they could to minimise warming in their series before finally being exposed by the scientific community.

          2. DirkH

            Shut up, Totalitarian; we don’t like your ilk around here.

  15. Ed Caryl

    Icarus62,
    That accusation is libelous. Can you back it up? In court?

  16. Clarity Blog » Blog Archive » Body Blows

    […] upon which the Bild story is based.  Since we don’t read German, we will borrow from a post on the No Tricks Zone blog, which specializes in reporting climate news from Germany, in English. “THE CO2 LIES … pure […]

  17. kaylene

    ..I look forward to the book being available in Australia
    will this mean a cessation of building those wind turbines that in the construction have polluted China in such a way that if it was a multi national company …the envoiromentalist/greens would have been up in arms….
    lets all take a deep breath and wait for the fall out

  18. jim

    Here in Australia, the mainstream press has not reported this great news, but then we have internet and media censorship of articles that put our (socialist) government in bad light(and most Australians think we live in a robust democracy). It will be a truly delicious irony if the whole AGW scam/ Fabian hidden agenda of the UN comes unstuck in Germany. Something very few people realize is that the Nazis were born of the Green Socialist movement- they were Fabians resorting to bullets as well as bulls&$t. The “Fascist” derision after the war was to deflect attention away from the underlying cause of the National Socialists. It was always Hitler’s intention to keep business in check if they did not do as was expected of them. If the great Fabian victory ever succeeds(heaven forbid) those banks and other business entities that have been made grand promises for their support will find themselves being shafted-the same tactic the Nazis did on Norway via Quisling. For those who are not up to date with this grand treachery, Hitler made promises of land and power for the support of the government of Vidkun Quisling, but it was just a big lie-the Nazis just came in and effectively raped the country. It was an act of incredible bravery that a single public servant was able to hide the gold from the treasury from the Nazis. Any money the same tactic is being used on world leaders with promises of unelected power for support of the UN. What a sad indictment on the human race that we can fall for the same trick(appeal to greed) twice in living memory. If I were a man of religion, I would deem the work of the IPCC to be the work of the DEVIL.

  19. Steve

    Finally some great news, thankyou Germany , here in Australia we are just getting force fed lies, from a Government that started with lies, ” there will be no Carbon Tax under the Government that I lead”, make no mistake, in our great country this PM is dispised & yet the ball still rolls , their climate experts have proven to be a joke after joke , yet remain elevated under this PM. I only hope that your waking up will be our lifeline. Well Done, I wish you the best.

  20. Rolling back the warming faith | My Blog

    […] Germany’s Bild tells a million of readers: THE CO2 LIE […]

  21. David of Brisbane

    At last!

    If the truth is coming out in Germany after all these years of lies means anything, it is the Climate Fraud and Carcon Tax Scam has hit a Concrete Wall.
    And FINISHED!
    Now,
    How do we get back all our taxes stolen in the name of science?
    You realise that the jails of the world are going to be full of crooked and convicted scientists. And no forgetting the lying politicians of every colour.Red/Green and even Blue.

  22. Billy

    @Icarus62

    Actually it is possible to drink bleach safely at the correct dilution level. Bleach has been recommended for water treatment for campers and wilderness survival. It could save you life if you are lost in the forest.

  23. BobR

    As an old retired geologist I recognized “hair in the biscuits” the moment I read the Kyoto Protocols over 10 years ago. I couldn’t believe they were serious until I recognized the environmentalist signature (blame humanity) of the utter BS in their AGW hypothesis.. There are glaring errors to anyone knowing anything about the Pleistocene Ice Ages of which we are still in Interglacial stage #5, of a series of 100 thousand year glaciations that have beset the northern hemisphere for nearly the past million years. The idea that we are about to burn up because of greenhouse gases has no counterpart in past climates. As long as we have a cooler than normal
    climate today and ice in our polar regions, I believe it foolhardy to try to reduce greenhouse gases.

  24. Icarus62

    All this absurd and laughable denial… AGW is an established fact beyond the slightest plausible doubt as we all know, but disputing that is rather academic at this stage in any case. It’s clear that we cannot realistically avoid the devastating global warming that we’ve triggered. We are going to see perhaps 8 or 10 degrees C of global warming because no country is going to keep valuable fossil fuels in the ground as long as the EROEI makes extraction viable, so they will be burned sooner or later, and that spells disaster for global civilisation.

    James Lovelock’s prediction of a reduction of global population to 1 billion by 2100 could be unduly optimistic…

    1. DirkH

      It has not warmed over the last decade, so whatever influence CO2 has, natural factors have been able to offset the influence of a growing CO2 concentration. This in contradiction to the IPCC’s model projection. You say AGW is an established fact beyond the slightest possible doubt – if that were true, the model projections would not have been falsified by real events. So the models are wrong; we have to reconsider all predictions and projections by the warmists.

      1. Icarus62

        In reality global warming hasn’t even slowed down, so that knocks the latest denier nonsense on the head, and there isn’t the least prospect of it slowing down unless we have a global economic collapse sufficient to shut down half the industry and power generation on the planet… and in that kind of devastation I presume there would be a great deal of hardship and loss of life. So… damned if we do, damned if we don’t.

  25. Jürgen Hubert

    Some background information about the authors:

    Professor Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt used to work for Shell in his field of public relations until 2001, whereupon he switched to RWE, one of Germany’s largest energy companies… which runs a lot of coal power plants. And his professorship in Chemistry is a honorary one. As far as I can determine, his research work ended in 1975 – after that, his jobs were either political or corporate ones.

    Sources:
    http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Vahrenholt
    http://www.rwe.com/web/cms/de/86244/rwe-innogy/unternehmen/management/prof-dr-fritz-vahrenholt/

    Dr. Sebastian Lüning, on the other hand, is a geologist and palaeontologist, not a climatologist – you can find his list of publications here:

    http://www.geo.uni-bremen.de/geochronologie/staff/Sebastian.htm

    None of these publications seem to indicate that he is an expert in climatology.

    Oh, and you might have noticed that a lot of geologists seem to be among the scientists who are skeptical about global warming. But you should keep in mind that just about the only sources of funding and employment for geologists outside of academia are the oil and mining industries…

    1. kkim2ooo

      And Sorosorg finances Mr Hansen ..Shell and BP finance CRU………..

      You look responsible in your avatar …yet you debate with the worse logic fallacy…..ad hominem.

  26. Jürgen Hubert

    Oh, and “leading daily” sounds better than “leading tabloid” as a description for BILD.

  27. Ulrich Elkmann

    One can take it as a litmus test of the whole warmist mindset: just tell people that the world is not going to hell in a handbasket and that you think you have got good reasons for this stance. Unbelief and doubt are understandable, given deacdes of “consensus”, but they should be willing to listen, check the facts for themselves and be delighted if the future is not as black as they were always taught.
    Instead they start to shout, stamping their foot, eyes shut: “it’s a FACT, it’s a FACT…” Perhaps one should try to tell them how such behaviour strikes more sober folks.

    1. DirkH

      The Left wants to instrumentalize CAGW like they managed to instrumentalize nuclear fear, that’s all. They NEED CAGW to drive their agenda forth.
      Exhibit #1:
      http://taz.de/Klimakonferenz-in-Berlin/!87067/
      “After Nuclear Power Is Before The Coal Death!”

  28. Icarus62

    The abject failure of national governments to address global warming to any worthwhile degree means that the only sensible course now is self-preservation, starting at the level of the individual and moving up through families and small communities. Learn to become resilient, reduce your dependence on supermarkets and mains services, forge mutually beneficial links with others who have their eyes open, reduce or eliminate debt, learn practical skills, acquire good tools etc. Be prepared to move out of high-risk areas (southwest US which is rapidly turning to desert, anywhere at sea level etc.). Plant drought- and heat-tolerant food trees which can cope with the shifting of climate zones polewards and uphill – at least for a few years.

    We have no realistic chance now of avoiding catastrophic global warming so hope for the best but prepare for the worst.

    1. Ulrich Elkmann

      Well, we managed to survive the hundreds of starving millions in the 1970s, the death of our forests and acidified lakes in the 1980s, the skin cancer from the ozone hole in the 1990s, the end of oil, copper, coal etc. in 2000, the 20 meter sea level rise, the 50 million climate refugees by 2010, the coming ice age, peak oil, the end of coal, a world without bees, a world without working antibiotics, silent spring, nuclear winter, and Y2K. Don’t underestimate our ability to deal with a little Global Warming.

    2. Ed Caryl

      “southwest US which is rapidly turning to desert”
      NOT!
      http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2011/jul/27jul2011a2.html
      There is no long term trend. The recent trend I’d up.
      Besides, the SW has BEEN desert for several thousand years. I know the territory. That’s where I live.

  29. Icarus62

    Ulrich Elkmann: Great news, I hope you’re right! Like I said, hope for the best but prepare for the worst. I’ve already moved uphill and started planting trees.

    1. DirkH

      Absolute NH temperatures are 4 deg C BELOW current SH temperatures; (funny, isn’t it?) So if CO2 warms every place on the globe by 2 deg C, Germany will be half on its way to the apocalyptic current climate of Rio De Janeiro.
      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/07/how-reliable-are-global-temperature-anomalies/

      It looks like you’ve been had, Ikarus. Direct your complaints to James Hansen, GISS; NASA.

      1. Icarus62

        The NH contains a lot more land at high (therefore cold) latitudes than the SH does.

        The SH contains a lot more ocean vs land than the NH does.

        So it seems to make sense that average NH temperature would tend to be lower than average SH temperature.

        Also it would seem to make sense that the NH would be warming faster than the SH (because the oceans have greater thermal inertia than land).

        Both these things are true.

        So… what was the problem again?

  30. Black Pearl

    Can I now claim back all my carbon taxes as being mis-sold like PPI ?

  31. commonsensemajority

    Folks,

    I notice that you are playing with the Icky #62 [-snip, let’s keep away from the name-calling]. He is well known for constantly shooting himself in the foot, as well as making things up as he goes along, over on the Daily Telegraph.

    I’ll point you towards a classic quote of his over the last few days:

    “various analyses find that natural forcings over this period sum to around zero”
    (this was after he was challenged on made up ‘smoke and mirrors’ analysis wrt. 1900-2010)

    have fun 😉

    1. commonsensemajority

      btw, acknowledge the snip mods, apologies; but maybe we are all too tolerant wrt. the name-calling of ‘denier’ (cf. holocaust denial), which the cAGW advocates constantly get away with.

  32. Icarus62

    Yes csm, that’s what Meehl et al 2004 finds –

    http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/2/0/7/6/2/8/5/Meehl-with-labels-44587810031.jpeg
    Combinations of Natural and Anthropogenic Forcings in Twentieth-Century Climate – Meehl et al 2004: http://www.cawcr.gov.au/staff/jma/meehl_additivity.pdf

    In the absence of anthropogenic warming we’d be roughly 0.8C cooler, back down to the global temperature of the early 20th Century.

    1. commonsensemajority

      Icky, again, there you go again with the stuff that feeds garbage in, garbage out (GIGO) into IPCC GCM’s. I don’t know how you can possibly have the nerve to quote such material here and now in the present world, esp. in the wake of Climategate 2.0. Maybe you could have got away with such stuff five years ago.

      (i) There is an increasing divergence between climate sceance doomsayer predictions/projections in the real world, not least the lack of warming for the last decade plus (as much as ~15 years). Please don’t show me *tuned* 2007 models, because I am not interested, not with (i) their huge error bars that a bus can be driven through, and (ii) there having only been 4 years after the revised models were put forward via. AR4, and (iii) definitely not further to CG 2.0.

      (ii) The CG 2.0 e-mails demonstrate the severe self-doubts that the insiders had wrt. their models in private. It’s just a shame they did not share these concerns in public.

      —-

      Jones

      Basic problem is that all models are wrong – not got enough middle and low level clouds.
      —-

      Barnett
      [IPCC AR5 models]

      clearly, some tuning or very good luck involved. I doubt the modeling world will be able to get away with this much longer
      ———-

      Hegerl
      [IPCC AR5 models]

      So using the 20th c for tuning is just doing what some people have long suspected us of doing […] and what the nonpublished diagram from NCAR showing correlation between aerosol forcing and sensitivity also suggested.
      ———————

      … I particularly want to focus on the *tuning* aspect, which tended to be used rather than a proper understanding of *all* forcings.

      sheesh, come back to me when Trenberth et al. (the RealClimate crowd) have a proper understanding of basics such as albedo, as well as the potential for bi-directional feedback/forcing via. clouds. Also come back to me when you finally acknowledge the importance of multidecadal oscillations related to AMO/PDO, as even recently acknowledged by Muller (via. BEST, which was land-only, but that is for another day).

      ————

    2. Ed Caryl

      The 1930’s?

  33. J.B. Young

    I don’t know how to properly say thank you in German, but THANK YOU, Germany!!!!!!

  34. Cold Sun | Frank Davis

    […] So it seems to me to be news if some large MSM outfit turns sceptical about AGW, as seems to have happened with Germany’s Bild (circulation 4 million), it’s real news: […]

  35. Science et Nouvel Ordre Mondial: l’escroquerie du réchauffement climatique anthropique exposée dans les médias allemands… « Resistance71 Blog
  36. Rolling Back The Global Warming Faith « PA Pundits – International

    […] Germany’s Bild tells its million of readers: THE CO2 LIE […]

  37. L Michael Hohmann

    Great that book is out and gets publicity? But what’s new? The IPPC in their own words have said from the beginning, and now, that the whole AGW hoohaa is a swindle, see my blogsite and especially the 04 OCT 2010 entry.

  38. TomO

    Scientific proof will not make AGW go away. This isn’t about raising taxes or wealth transfer, it’s about depopulation, so no matter what “proof” comes out that the science is wrong, the proposition will continue. When you “plan” for global warming when actually you are entering global cooling, you will push to have farm land turned into “green sources of alternative energy,” and ban the use of carbon based fuels for energy. The first starves off the poor and old, and the second will leave them without heat in the cold, freezing them to death, thus conveniently getting rid of all those “useless eaters” that some would prefer gone.

  39. L Michael Hohmann

    Great that book is out and gets publicity!!!!! and a big THANK YOU to the authors. But what’s new? The IPPC in their own words have said from the beginning, and now, that the whole AGW hoohaa is a swindle, see my blogsite and especially the 04 OCT 2010 entry.

    [I thought I better correct my earlier musings, with a question mark in the wrong place. Haste make waste -;) ]

  40. Icarus62

    The global population is far larger than the planet can sustainably support, but we don’t need to instigate deliberate and inhumane methods of depopulation, since if we just carry on as we are, nature will do that for us. All the evidence says that we’re heading for a resource-depleted, overheated planet. That’s bound to finish off a few billion people.

    1. DirkH

      You’re a sick person.

      1. Icarus62

        No, just realistic. Ever read ‘Limits to Growth’?

        1. DirkH

          You must be the last Leftist Malthusian in the wild still believing in that.
          http://hauntingthelibrary.wordpress.com/2011/07/01/limits-to-growth-heres-what-you-never-hear-about-it-and-the-truth/

          Somebody should catch you before you go extinct so we can marvel at you in a zoo.

        2. DirkH

          And go find a copy of “All watched over By Machines Of Loving Grace” by Adam Curtis. Part 2 nicely demolishes the naive belief of the 70ies in simple cybernetic models. What demolished the models was, of course, what we later learned in Chaos Theory.

  41. Icarus62

    So Dirk, you’re happy with the idea of infinite growth on a finite planet?

    1. DirkH
      1. Icarus62

        Julian’s thesis seems to be “we always find something else”. Sounds rather naive to me.

        1. DirkH

          Read it.

        2. DirkH

          For more good news:
          http://www.gapminder.org

  42. Icarus62

    DirkH

    Assuming that it was these alleged 0.25 W/m ^2 that drove the planet in and out of glaciations is a leap of faith, as behind these numbers linger climate models, and we know how bad they are at getting anything right.

    No, it’s simple orbital mechanics.

    Furthermore, even if this number is true, it shows not the sensitivity towards a switch to a HotHouse Earth climate but the sensitivity to another glaciation. Assuming that these two risks are identical would be foolish, as there has not been a Hothouse Earth for many millions of years – so “HotHouse” looks much more unlikely than “Glaciation”.

    Finally an intelligent science-based comment, how refreshing. Yes you’re right, we know more about the Earth going from current conditions into a glaciation than we do about the Earth going from current conditions to a warmer state, but that’s not necessarily reassuring, is it? We don’t know that it’s “more unlikely” and there’s certainly no prospect of any cooling on the horizon, with all the greenhouse gases we’re pumping into the atmosphere. The only real question is how hot it’s going to get and how soon.

    1. DirkH

      Oh lawdymine… have you ever wondered; WHY we enter glaciations regularly but not hothouse conditions? Do you know the Stefan-Boltzmann law; the fact that a body radiates proportional to the fourth power of its temperature; and how unlikely a rise of temperature therefore is; do you know ANYTHING about negative feedbacks? Have you understood Miskolczi’s theory?

      You have a lot to learn, I fear.

      1. Icarus62

        Dirk, are you familiar with the climate history of the Earth? Even hundreds of millions of years ago when the sun was substantially cooler, the Earth’s climate was often hotter than today. The current ice age is due to the unusually low CO₂ level which has been declining for about 50 million years –

        http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/2/0/7/6/2/8/5/cenozoicfulljh-58586769462.jpeg

        On that basis we’re surely far more likely to see hothouse conditions than another glaciation, aren’t we? We have a hotter sun and we have rapidly rising greenhouse gas levels, with no indication of any significant negative feedbacks (if there are substantial negative feedbacks then why weren’t they in evidence over the wild climate swings of the last couple of million years?).

        1. Ed Caryl

          Icarus,
          There are clouds:
          http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/2011GL050506.shtml
          The sun cycles:
          (article coming soon)
          And Milankovich cycles:
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

        2. DirkH

          “Dirk, are you familiar with the climate history of the Earth? Even hundreds of millions of years ago when the sun was substantially cooler, the Earth’s climate was often hotter than today.”

          And the Earth’s atmosphere was much denser than today, and contained nearly no oxygen. The comparison doesn’t hold on multiple levels. Without oxygen, there can have been no water cycle as we know it today. There were no photosynthesizing organisms.

    2. Ed Caryl

      Icarus, have you joined the climate bet for charity?
      (Sidebar above.)

  43. melty

    “The AGW denial hoax is on its last legs.”

    Now if we can only get physics, chemistry, and the decadal temperature trends since the 1970s to agree, we’ll be home and dry. /sarc

    I’m with Icarus62 and most of the world’s serious scientists on this. If you are not, you have a lot of explaining to do – a Der Bild or Daily Mail story is just not going to cut it.

    1. DirkH

      No; we don’t have any explaining to do. The people who forecast (predict, project, whatever) extraordinary things to happen have to.

      By now, their explanations for the current lack of warming are not convincing, and contradict their forecast from 10 years ago.

      Personally, I will just continue watching their failure. They can’t get out of this, as the advances in computer speed will not make meaningful models possible in the next 20 years. (Just to say a number)

      There is a different way out for long term forecasts; the one that Piers Corbyn is taking, but CO2 climate science has ruled out that way for themselves.

  44. Science et Nouvel Ordre Mondial: l’escroquerie du réchauffement climatique anthropique exposée dans les médias allemands | CentPapiers

    […] Source originale […]

  45. RealClearPolitics – The Galileo of Global Warming | environmentalism articles.

    […] But that’s not going to work, which brings me to the recent news item that I mentioned at the beginning. James Delingpole’s Daily Telegraph blog alerted me to the latest. In Germany, where the global warming dogma has been very deeply entrenched, one of the founding fathers of Germany’s environmentalist movement, Professor Fritz Vahrenholt, has converted into a global warming skeptic and is promoting his views in a new book and a series of article in Bild, a major German newspaper. What caused the change? According to one account: […]

  46. Perry
  47. Floor Anthoni

    Now that we know that ‘Global warming’ is a fraud, you may wish to know exactly why, without wasting time unnecessarily. Read 7 chapters to understand our atmosphere and the scientific frauds committed: http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/climate.htm.
    Become an informed skeptic!

    1. DirkH

      Great! Thanks!
      Global mean wind speed has increased by 30% over the past 150 years – leading to more evaporation and more transfer of heat to the atmosphere on the order of 50 W/m^2 according to this page:
      http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/fletcher.htm

  48. Germany Reverses Position on Catastrophic Global Warming « DeHavelle.com

    […] This blog suggests that the German media has a sudden rush of anti-catastrophe articles as a result of the book. […]

  49. Body Blow To German Global Warming Movement! Major Media Outlets Unload On “CO2 Lies!” | Are We Aware Yet? Political News Blog-Current News Political News Blog

    […] No Tricks Zone “THE CO2 LIES … pure fear-mongering … should we blindly trust the experts?” […]

  50. Skeptics are winning: “The carbon market is dead”

    […] […]

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