Unfit For Debate – Rahmtorf’s Flies Off – Unleashes Tirade Against “Conspiracy Theororist” Skeptics

I’ve been wondering when the PIK would take off the muzzle they seemed to have put on Rahmstorf after a German court fined him for spreading untruths about a journalist who dared to contradict his science. On that read: Lubos here, court-certification here, and here.

Using the occasion of low Arctic ice, Rahmstorf now comes out swinging again, and looking at today’s performance, it probably won’t too long before he slips and winds up in court again. Talk about being debate-intolerant!

Today he has a guest piece in the lefty Süddeutsche Zeitung (South German Newspaper) titled: In the vicious circle of warming. And true to his style, he goes after the skeptics like a famished pitbull on red meat.

First Rahmstorf misleads the readers (surprise, surprise) and warns that all that melting ice in question up there (0.006% of the world’s ice) may very well have serious consequences for the entire planet. He quotes Jennifer Francis of Ruttgers University: “The question is not whether sea ice will impact global circulation, rather it is: How could it not?” Maybe because the sea ice amount in the Arctic is much too small compared to the sheer volume of the oceans?

Then he laments that the reduced albedo will lead to a vicious circle of accelerating ice melt and global climate collapse.

There’s enough ice on Greenland to raise global sea level by seven meters, and so the loss of just a fraction of that ice would have grave consequences.”

Well, we’ve been watching tide gauge data (and not crystal ball models) very closely and the observations are certainly clear – no accelerating sea level rise. And Mr Rahmstorf wonders why we are skeptical? Never mind that global temperatures have’t risen this century.

In his screed, Rahmstorf carefully cherry-picks, always citing the studies from the most alarmist warmists.  Never does he cite from the hundreds of peer-reviewed papers that contradict his end-of-world claims.

In his piece, Rahmstorf tries to have it both ways, claiming that both droughts and floods, heat and bitter cold, are all evidence of man-made global warming climate change. For Rahmstorf, the distribution of weather measures are no longer Gaussian, rather it is now bathtub shaped – lots of weather at the extremes and nothing in the middle. Listening to Rahmstorf, you’d think he’s the marketing director at Munich Re reinsurance company trying to scare his clients into buying a insurance policy.

Turns out, he is connected to the Munich Reinsurer.

Throughout, Rahmstorf’s tone is frustrated and spiteful towards debate. Things are not moving quickly enough for him. In his view, the obstacles are clearly the skeptics. He’s annoyed that skeptics have the gall to question the differences in the various sets of Arctic sea ice data. He writes:

‘Climate skeptics’ have seen the differences as reasons for manipulation accusations – the pertinent websites serve a niche audience of conspiracy theorists. Already in 2008 there were accusations of manipulation, which back then had to be retracted. Back then the ‘climate skeptics’ polemicized: ‘The Arctic refuses to melt’.  The occasion they used was that the record of 2007 was not broken the very next year.”

The troubling part about Rahmstorf’s position is that he is only open to the Arctic factor of “warming”. Nowhere does he show any degree of openness that other factors are at play…ocean currents, soot, storms spreading the ice, etc.. For Rahmstorf it’s only man, Co2 and imminent tipping points. He adds:

We’ll hear more of the same in the years ahead as well, because natural weather-dependent fluctuations are superimposed over the downward trend and so a new record cannot be expected every year.”

Yes, when it melts, it’s climate. But when it freezes, it’s weather. If it’s the Arctic, it’s climate. If it’s Antarctica, it’s weather. If it’s a hurricane, it’s climate, but if it’s a light spring shower, it’s weather. If it’s too hot, it’s climate. If it’s too cold, it’s weather. So is the science of Stefan Rahmstorf.

He ends by implying that we have to stop listening to the skeptics and that 0.006% part of the world’s ice is:

…now sending us a clear alarm signal – we can only hope that the people will no longer keep closing their eyes to it.”


Stefan Rahmstorf is department leader at the über-alarmist Potsdam-Institute for Climate Impact Research and Professor at the University of Potsdam. He’s a member of Hans Schellnhuber’s (WBGU). Moreover he is also an author of the (IPCC), donates money to alarmist website Klimaretter and is associated with the Munich Reinsurer, which makes lots of money selling insurance policies to people who have concerns about storm damage.


9 responses to “Unfit For Debate – Rahmtorf’s Flies Off – Unleashes Tirade Against “Conspiracy Theororist” Skeptics”

  1. Harry Dale Huffman
  2. thebiggreenlie

    I say let’s keep letting these fools talk publicly! They are going absolutely “over the edge” now that their previous claims are being exposed as nothing more than huge fabrications in order to sell their disaster scenarios in order to keep them employed and making money off their fake organizations!
    i.e. Al Gore is now apparently referencing the Book of Revelations in his madness that the world is going to hell faster than we can stop it because Climate Change is fully engaged!
    Let them talk………..they are so bizarre now that they don’t even make sense to themselves!

  3. Ian Mott

    There goes that albedo 8ull$#!t again. The albedo of water at a 10% angle of incidence is almost the same as that of ice anyway. But a 1 square m beam of light at that angle will also be spread over 5.73 m2 of surface area, as it always has done. And even if 4mkm2 of sea ice were to melt there will always be 1.5mkm2 of greenland ice intact to do the job.

  4. Edward.

    Rahmstorf, has been de-frocked, another ‘global warming priest’ has been found out.
    His whole world is disintegrating, his child like anger reflects his puerile impetuosity, he is kicking back at all and anyone.
    Look too – at Mann, resorting to making legal threats towards a journalist – Mark Steyn, all he did was to tell the truth.

    All mountebanks and snake-oil pedlars hate the truth the most, it burns their eyes and sears their memories.

  5. Bernd Felsche

    That’s some serious bed-wetting.

  6. DirkH

    “‘Climate skeptics’ have seen the differences as reasons for manipulation accusations – the pertinent websites serve a niche audience of conspiracy theorists.”

    The Climategate e-mails have proven that they do conspire.

    Rahmstorf does the same thing as Der Spiegel or MSNBC, proclaim something to be a reality that isn’t the reality. In this case, that consensus climate scientists are honest.

  7. Renewable Guy

    P Gosselin
    29. August 2012 at 09:50 | Permalink | Reply

    North Pole albedo is huge BS

    Albedo has been around long before global warming was an issue.



    Different features of Earth (such as snow, ice, land, ocean, and clouds) have different albedos—the percentage of solar radiation reflected back into space. For example, land and ocean have low albedos (typically about 10 to 40 percent is reflected back into space) and absorb more energy than they reflect, while snow, ice, and clouds have high albedos (typically 70 to 90 percent) and reflect more energy than they absorb. Overall, Earth’s average albedo is about 30 percent; in other words, about 30 percent of incoming solar radiation is reflected back into space, and 70 percent is absorbed.

    Earth’s radiation budget is a concept that helps us understand how much energy Earth receives from the Sun, and how much energy Earth radiates back to outer space. Depending on the balance, Earth may be experiencing a net warming or a net cooling. Over the past century, there has been a net warming, which has caused Earth’s temperature to increase by about 0.8°C

    1. DirkH

      Renewable Guy, please inform yourself about the difference the incident angle of light makes when hitting a water surface. Hint: The absorption is NOT constant.

      I recommend experimenting with a flashlight and a swimming pool at night. A puddle might do as well.

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