Svensmark Hits Back At Scienceblog’s Florian Freistetter Over Vahrenholt Book

There’s been lots of disingenuous criticism from the CO2 end-of the world warmists and Armageddonists aimed at Fritz Vahrenholt’s and Sebastian Lüning’s new best selling skeptic book Die kalte Sonne. Much of it attacking Svensmark’s theory of solar amplification via cosmic rays.

Again. none have really read the book, they simply repeat the same old debunked arguments.

Henrik Svensmark hits back at the skeptics at the Die kalte Sonne site (scroll down to the English version):

Prof. Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center (Copenhagen) on the criticism aimed at his solar amplifier via cosmic rays:

Some people, including your critic Florian Freistetter on ScienceBlog, seem to think that physics is a democratic process and what matters is to count how many papers favour or disfavour each hypothesis. That of course is nonsense. All that really signifies is the evidence from observations and experiments, and how a theory stands up to attempts to falsify it. Remember Einstein’s comment on the pamphlet Hundert Autoren gegen Einstein (1931) – “If I were wrong, one would be enough”.

The hypothesis that cosmic rays strongly affect the climate offers a serious challenge to the more fashionable hypothesis that man-made greenhouse gases have been the main cause of climate changes. So it does not surprise me that many people try to falsify it. In fact it’s quite flattering that they go to so much trouble, when one good outcome (for them) should be enough, and in my opinion no such paper has been produced so far.

Freistetter suggests that all the recent papers say I’m wrong. That shows he is not very familiar with the climate physics literature. I think he has gone to some trouble to select papers against the cosmic-ray theory and ignore the favourable ones. Continue…

For the climate end-of-worlders  and critics like Freistetter, it would help to first climb out of the holes of ignorance before spouting off. Try reading for once. Freistetter admitted to ramming his head into the sand: “I never read the book. I didn’t want to buy it.” He doesn’t want to deal with arguments he can’t beat.

In his recent Blog-Artikel, Freistetter provided 1001 reasons why Prof. Svensmark is wrong about his solar amplifier via cosmic rays theory. Unfortunately for Freistetter, CERN’s results and historical correlations between sun and climate are ignoring his junk science.

7 responses to “Svensmark Hits Back At Scienceblog’s Florian Freistetter Over Vahrenholt Book”

  1. DirkH

    After Freistetter gives a lengthy pseudo-fair overview of the literature that examines Svensmark’s hypothesis, he writes
    “Die wissenschaftlichen Fakten sind aber so oder so klar; die menschengemachte Veränderung des Klimas lässt sich nicht bestreiten.”

    “But be that as it may, the scientific facts are clear anyhow; the antropogenic change of the climate cannot be disputed.”
    (tried to translate as literal as possible)

    That sentence makes a mockery of all his citations before, whether he picked them randomly or in a biased way, and it makes a mockery of science.

    He’s in “scienceblogs”? They should file him under orthodoxblogs or something like that.

  2. R. de Haan

    “Unfortunately for Freistetter, CERN’s results and historical correlations between sun and climate are ignoring his junk science”.

    are devastating his junk science

  3. Ulrich Elkmann

    It’s also bad theology. If you want to justify the doctrine of original sin or the immaculate conception and quote everyone in Migne’s Patrologia and then declare “Be that as it may…”, you’re not playing it by the rules of this particular discipline.

    1. DirkH

      Allright, so instead of “orthodoxblogs” maybe “illogicalblogs”. Or “incoherentblogs”.

  4. TimiBoy

    So where is Dana?

  5. Joseph A Olson, PE

    Svensmark can make a series of correct observations and still not develope the correct hypothesis.

    “Cosmic rays storngly affect climate”….causing….”detectable changes in
    aerosols”….and….”nucleation in the 3 nm to 50 nm range”…..

    These observations may well be correct, but they hypothesis keeps the focus on the flawed “feedback” concepts of AGW and ignores several obvious problems. Most obvious is that combining 3 nm Sulphuric molecules into larger 50 nm molecule and precipitating out of the atmosphere as rain will REMOVE these compounds from the air. There are not large pools of Sulphur compounds on the surface waiting to be evaporated. The source for ALL of these compounds is Earth’s variable fission which IS THE PRIME FACTOR in these changes.

    “From solar activity to cosmic rays ionization to aerosals and liquid clouds,
    a causal chain appears to operate on a global scale.”

    Correct, however the “causal chain” is the variation in Earth’s fission and the related heat and “elemental atom” and “elemental molecule” production varitions that follow. It is the availability of these molecules in the atmosphere that controls the amount of nucleation that can happen. This theory described under the “Geo-Nuclear” tab at the Faux Science Slayer website. Stop looking at weather and climate as atmospheric events. What happens in the air is the final trailing and most observable event in a long series of actual primary events, beginnig with WHAT CAUSES COSMIC RAY EVENTS in the first place.

  6. Olavi

    Your’e wrong, and Svensmark is right. In next decade you’ll going to find that he is right. I’ll predict 2 decrees celcius cooling in next two decades. Co2 theory in not at stage to be falsified, because in AGW theory everything is possible. What ever fits, so how you falsify it? It’s politics not science.

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