Fritz Vahrenholt In Major Newspaper Interview: “We Need An Explanation On Why There’s Been No Warming Since 2000”

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

Fritz Vahrenholt gives a comprehensive interview with leading Austrian daily KURIER here.

Why is it cooling? H/t: Real Science

The interview covers a number of areas. But a few points I found particularly interesting. On the lack of warming since 2000, the KURIER asks if it’s too short of a time period.

Of course it is. But we still need an explanation on why CO2 emissions, which the IPCC says is responsible for global warming, and which rose continuously since 2000, has not caused any warming. There has to be natural causes: the sun and the 60-year ocean cycles –  they were the reasons why we wrote the book.”

Vahrenholt also has words on Germany’s current attempt to move to renewable energy:

We’ve  gone into a hectic rush and today in Germany we are converting wheat into bioethanol, and installing 50% of all the world’s photovoltaic systems in a country that gets as much sunshine as Alaska – namely Germany.  This uncoordinated mad rush is rooted in fear: It’s our fault, we could trigger a climate catastrophe.”

On the IPCC filtering out the sun and other factors:

It is indeed interesting that of the 34 members of the IPCC editorial team that wrote the summary report, one third are connected to the WWF and Greenpeace. That is legitimate, but that has to be made transparent. Imagine just the opposite and the editorial team were one third Exxon supporters. Wouldn’t people say: ‘Hello! Is that really necessary?'”

Vahrenholt on why the climate debate has inquisitorial undercurrents:

Because it has long since not been about a purely scientific issue,  rather it is about how to run society. Some are saying that we are entering an uncontrollable situation, and so claim any means against it is justified.”

Like throwing democracy overboard, as some are advocating. Here Vahrenholt specifically singles out Schellnhuber’s WBGU and his Great Transformation of society masterplan, which calls for:

…changes in consumption behavior, changed trade behavior and that non-sustainable living styles be stigmatized by society.”

On the success of the book?

It’s no. 14 on the Spiegel bestseller list. Of course I hope the book will be read. The worst thing that could happen would be a spiral of silence, a discussion that never gets held. In five or ten years, we’ll know who is right.”

Overall, a solid and convincing interview by the KURIER. This will push book sales in Austria, Switzerland and Bavaria. Readers can visit the “http://kaltesonne.de/” site, which has an English translation button.

 

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

16 responses to “Fritz Vahrenholt In Major Newspaper Interview: “We Need An Explanation On Why There’s Been No Warming Since 2000””

  1. John Shade

    I find your website invaluable for keeping in touch with events in Germany, a land burdened, like the UK and Australia, with more than a fair share of the climate madness – presumably due in each case to the power of a largely left-wing political class. As part of their abandonment of the working class, they have pursued eco-issues as a new cause through which to feel good about themselves.

    The success of this new book, and the mass media impact of it which you report is very encouraging for a restoration of scientific rigour to its rightful place in your society, displacing (soon please!) the shoddy propagandising of a handful scientists alarmed to distraction by airborne CO2.

    As an occasional gardener, I am very pleased to have this vital gas in the air in increased amounts. As a student of history, I am very pleased to see the social progress which has gone hand-in-hand with CO2 emissions. As an admirer of technology, I have not the slightest doubt that we shall see reduced CO2 emissions from humans in due course. Finally, as someone with an active interest in climate science, I see no convincing reason for even a modest amount of alarm over rising CO2 levels. The legislative panic about it we have seen in the UK, in Australia, and in Germany, has been nothing short of an utter disgrace – moral, intellectual, and political.

    I look forward to more good news from Germany! Thanks to your work. Vielen dank.

    [Thanks for the kind words. It’s going to be a long uphill battle. -PG]

  2. matti

    “There has to be natural causes: the sun and the 60-year ocean cycles – they were the reasons why we wrote the book.”

    Right on . They should also note that the sun’s cycles could be changing and more cooler weather is likely rather than unprecedented warming and the governments of Europe’s need to prepare for this in advance rather than spending significant funds to fight global warming which may never materialize and has not existed since 1998. The winters of Northern Europe and Asia have been cooling now for two decades completely opposite of what IPCC and NASA predicted. Why would any sane German follow the belief that Co2 will cause unprecedented warming .

    1. Mindert Eiting

      We should explain to sane Germans the logical asymmetry that (1) a false theory can have true consequences, but (2) a true theory cannot have false consequences. Arrhenius’ greenhouse theory was experimentally falsified in the early twentieth century. Whatever may cause global warming or cooling, it cannot be CO2. Germans can also read some books by Karl Popper, but the essence can be summarized in three sentences.

  3. fawlsh

    Die Kalte Sonne is a must read. The Authors summarize the facts and give the reader the chance to draw his own conclusions.

    The established Climate Scientists should be able to prove the authors wrong, should they be wrong.

    I presume the Climate Establishment will not try to discuss with the authors. Vahrenholt et al are right.

    The Climate consensus seems to break down. Australia, New Zealand and the EU-Countries are left alone battling global warming (less than 15% of the global population). And guess what is going to happen in the EU with the EURO currency crisis still not solved?

    Best of luck to the Aussies and NZ trying to save the planet.

    To cut a long story short. Do read at least the last chapters. We won’t do any good to the environment subsidizing PV and Windmills ever more. There won’t be any CO2-reduction. PV-Panel and Windmill have to be produced, too.

    We’ve been misled. That’s it. Let’s stop this bulls..

    … and yes, I believe there is a conspiracy to some degree.

  4. John F. Hultquist

    “. . . and installing 50% of all the world’s photovoltaic systems in a country that gets as much sunshine as . . .”

    I’ve wondered how Germans allowed this to happen. In a first course in physical geography one learns of Wladimir Köppen’s work on climate classification – first map published in 1884. [Now the Köppen-Geiger system]:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_Koppen_Map.png
    That’s not as simple as this:
    http://www.climatetemp.info/germany/
    Note the yellow line.
    Now compare with Yuma, Arizona.
    http://www.currentresults.com/Weather/Arizona/annual-days-of-sunshine.php

    The rush toward photovoltaic systems in Germany could not have happened before this sort of information was available. Two thoughts: Millions of Germans are clueless about their own climate; or Someone should be following the money backwards to the start of this policy.

    1. DirkH

      The PV rush started small, in 1990 under Kohl, with the “1000 roofs” program. It ended in 1992. It was an evaluation program.

      Under Schröder’s red-green coalition, the 100,000 roofs program started in 1999. It ended in 2003 with 300MW installed peak performance.

      Both of these programs paid part of the cost of the installation.

      The 100,000 roof program was immediately followed by the introduction of the feed-in tariff, also under a red-green coalition led by Schröder.

      For Schröder, the main reason was probably the creation of jobs – whether it really created a net surplus of jobs is a moot point; the PERCEPTION of job creation by the policies is what is important for the politician. For the greens, a clean power source – again,whether production of the PV cells produces pollution is moot, the PERCEPTION is what leads to re-election.

      Schröder lost the power in 2005. When he lost the power, unemployment was at record level of 13%(*) (for the whole of Germany, highest since re-unification). So the green jobs play didn’t work out for him, nor did the clean power play for the greens.

      (*) unemployment in Germany:
      http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbeitslosenquote#Arbeitslosenquote

      1. John F. Hultquist

        Thanks, Dirk.

  5. Sean

    If you try to generate photovoltaic power, you follow the sun. But if you want to maximize revenue, follow the subsidies. Unfortunately, they do not seem to be co-located.

  6. Icarus62

    This ‘Vahrenholt’ character should set up his own climate model with all the available data on solar irradiance, volcanic aerosols etc, and see if *he* can reproduce the global temperature trend over the last 150 years or so without including anthropogenic influences. If he can produce something valid and useful, and get it published in a respectable peer-reviewed scientific journal, then maybe he’ll have made a genuine contribution to climate science. Otherwise it just looks like he’s cherry-picking data to cast doubt on climate science without actually having a valid argument.

  7. Ed Caryl

    Icarus,
    “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
    Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/19/crowdsourced-climate-complexity-compiling-the-wuwt-potential-climatic-variables-reference-page/#more-56943

    1. Icarus62

      Someone has put a lot of work into that. However… there seems to be a great deal of evidence to show that atmospheric CO₂ is the ‘control knob’ (as Alley says) of global climate. The minutiae of other influences is interesting, but rather academic, as they are dwarfed by the CO₂ forcing.

      1. DirkH

        Don’t be silly. “Dwarfed by the CO2 forcing”? The H2O forcing is 3 times bigger at least than ALL the CO2 forcing; the CHANGE in CO2 concentrations causes even LESS of a change in forcing.

        If something DWARFS something else, it first needs to be BIGGER than that something else.

        1. Icarus62

          What ‘H₂O forcing’?

          1. DirkH

            Excuse me. Warmists call it a “feedback”. You know the downwelling LWIR caused by H2O.
            Anyhow, a photon is a photon and doesn’t care what label a warmist sticks on it. Call it the H2O greenhouse effect.

            See, Icarus, I’m willing to play along with warmist terminology; I won’t let you obstruct my argument with nitpicking. I’m not doing this to convince you; I’m doing it so everyone else reading this sees how ragged your entire argument is.

      2. Mindert Eiting

        Does that number in your name mean that you are fifty years old? If so, you will see this year Abraham.

        1. Mindert Eiting

          And if you read Alberto Miatello, you may be much happier the next fifty years of your life:

          http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Vacuum_space_and_Spencer.pdf

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