Vahrenholt Buries IPCC Scientist In Debate – Here’s The Video In German

UPDATE: See debate video in German:


All Stocker had for arguments was: 1) insisting Mann’s phony hockey stick was still valid 2) claiming there’s scientific consensus, and 3) we can trust the models! All three of course have long been proven to be false.

Their science is that bad, folks. I never would have believed it. Using an old discredited science, the IPCC is really looking like a bizarre end-of-world comedy act. 

It’s clear why IPCC scientists don’t like debating – and prefer insisting that we just believe them.

There are other nuances I found entertaining, and I’ll try to bring these up today, time permitting.


17 responses to “Vahrenholt Buries IPCC Scientist In Debate – Here’s The Video In German”

  1. DirkH

    Stocker disappoints. At 12:50 he pulls the same confidence trick that Renewable Guy tried to pull a few days back. He cites as proof of causality that climates models without added CO2 are not able to hindcast 20th century temps; but with CO2 they are.

    That’s of course a classical confidence trick. Somebody builds a computer program and the program has a switch “with CO2/without CO2”; then he shows you what happens with each of the switches positions.

    To which I say: THAT is your proof of causality? Go away, you cheap hack, leave science; find a table to wait, but make sure you don’t add up the bills in your head, as you’re not that good with numbers or logic. Use a cashier for that.

  2. DirkH

    Check your spam, Pierre, I spelled c0nfidence trickster wrong. 🙂

  3. marchesarosa

    It would be great if you could do a translation for us, Pierre, please.

  4. Walter Schneider

    The graphics of trend lines shown in connection with the video are quite clear and accurately present the view points of the respective speakers. However, I would like to know how Stocker explains this concern and why Vahrenholt did not mention it even once.

    It puzzles me why there is so much support for cuts in man-made CO2 emissions. After all, about 96.5 percent of annual emissions come from natural sources, and only 3.5 percent of annual emissions are man-made.

    Surely, even if all man-made emissions were cut — no more cooking, driving, shipping, manufacturing, heating or air-coditioning — that would result in at best minuscule reductions in the CO2 content of the atmosphere. Why would anyone bother if not to tax the air we breathe?

    1. DirkH

      Kyoto was intended to be a worldwide treaty. It was designed by a comission of the German Bundestag. The reference point is, cunningly, 1990, when DDR industries still blasted out loads of CO2. To fulfill its Kyoto targets, Germany only had to dismantle that industry – and they had already done that when Kyoto came into force.

      The result was: Kyoto became an albatros around the necks of the competition – Australia for instance forces its farmers to not mow native vegetation, making agriculture all but impossible, and accounts the CO2 sequestered by the new bushes and tress as CO2 emissions saved. UK has to shut down old coal power plants etc.

      Germany even had a surplus of CO2 savings and gave some carbon credits to France for political favors for free.

      That’s why ALL the political parties in Germany never asked the question “For What?” – Kyoto is a German designed industrial weapon.

      They don’t tell you that in German public TV – 😉

  5. Brent Hargreaves

    Mr. Gosselin (or may we call you “P” 😉 ), a translation is a mammoth task, but a summary of the debate would be most appreciated, including who the participants are.

    Thank you for publicising this to the non-German speaking world.

  6. Jean-M.

    I just watched the presentation from Ottmar Edenhofer given a day later – it’s really unfortunate that it’s not in English because it’s content is by a magnitude more important and frightening than the scientific climate debate between Vahrenholt and Stocker.
    You guessed it, it’s all about politics and it’s the strongest message I’ve ever seen so far using the argument of climate change to justify the most complete, radical and global change of the world economy by eliminating all extraction and consumption of fossil fuels within a few decades.
    His outlook to achieve this is to design a new market/economy (neues Marktdesign) which shall control:
    – production and consumption of electricity by a combination of instruments like power market and emission trading
    – variability of offer and demand
    – global capacity issues, i.e. fossil fuel reserves and absorption capacity of the atmosphere
    – merging these new “market instruments” with the existing and locally emerging CO2 emission tradings (eg. Australia)
    He is absolutely clear that the consequence of climate change will be the total redistribution of the world’s wealth – very heavy stuff coming along.
    His final recommendation to the audiance:
    Check it out for yourself, it’s all written in the following IPCC report, which is only a bit more than 1’000 pages long – easy to do in a weekend…

    1. DirkH

      I’ve been reading German and American economics news for 10 years now and nowhere outside the warmist circles does Edenhofer ever appear. He’s a one trick pony. And we know that Schellnhuber & friends want to rule the planet, so what’s new – fat chance for them I’d say.

      Maybe Merkel keeps them around just so she knows where they are. We wouldn’t want them to hide in an underground lair in a volcano.

    2. DirkH

      Oh, I already had that link in my collection. His cost curve for solar panels is corrupt. Costs have, since 1980 halved one time in 10 years – his curve suggests 5 years which is wildly over-optimistic.

      Didn’t check anything else of his numbers but I wouldn’t trust anything the guy writes.

      1. Billy

        I always laugh when I see that price comparison. In 1980 there was no consumer/commodity solar panel production. The market was dominated by aerospace, military, communication and navigation use. Those markets are notorious for extreme specification, testing and certification requirements. Cost for this type of product can be 5 to 50 times more than for similar consumer product.

    3. DirkH

      Pierre, please check spam again. Dunno what I did wrong.

      And another remark on the report you linked to: That’s the one where the major scenario was written by that greenpeace guy; went through the news as “80% renewables until 2050” possible or something like that. So, grey literature specifically made for the IPCC, Greenpeace promoting its wares (they sell renewable electricity in Germany via Greenpeace Energy, basically overpriced large hydro), damaging IPCC reputation some more in the process.

  7. DirkH

    Austria has killed fracking. A new law prescribes an environmental impacts study for every test drilling for shale gas. Industry stops all projects.

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