Today I thought I’d bring up one or two of the highlights of the Bern Debate between Fritz Vahrenholt and IPCC author Thomas Stocker. One highlight is Stocker getting all huffy and puffy about Vahrenholt calling Mann’s hockey stick a “Fälschung” (fake).
Bern Debate now on Youtube!
At the 4:50 mark Vahrenholt presents the infamous Michael Mann hockey stick graph and says “this graphic has been shown to be false, and was even in part faked”.
Then at the 14:50 mark, when asked why he went from being a warmist to a skeptic, Vahrenholt said he found too many things that didn’t fit and was surprised to discover that Mann’s stick was phony. Examining the science more closely, he found that many things just didn’t add up.
Having called Mann’s hockey stick a fake no less than three times in total, Stocker became indignant and accused Vahrenholt of provocation.
First off, there’s something I first have to get off my chest. Mr. Vahrenholt naturally has provoked in claiming three times that the climate curve by Michael Mann was fraudulent. That’s an accusation I vehemently reject. It’s an accusation that you cannot prove.”
At the 22:00 minute mark Vahrenholt got his chance and proved the stick was fake, summing up what Mann did in just a few sentences.
The fact of the matter is that the numerical models, the calculation operations which the IPCC relies on, are not able to reproduce the fluctuations of the past. We are talking about fluctuations on the order of plus or minus 0.5 degrees C. That’s not just something you can just leave off the table. The models are not able to completely depict reality. That’s the problem with the IPCC. The IPCC and its models cannot depict the clouds. And clouds have an awesome impact as you can imagine on the radiation and warming development of the Earth. And so that’s why it is somewhat interesting that you put yourself so massively behind Michael Mann, as he is cited in the Al Gore film where the curve is shown. This curve, has been forbidden to be shown by an English court without being accompanied by commentary because for the last 50 years he [Mann] noticed that his models with his tree rings are so wrong that he simply left them out. In his original curve they showed a cooling, and so that’s why he left them out! You can see in the e-mails how someone said “we have to hide the decline”, and others said ‘that’s a wonderful trick – let’s just tack on the thermometer record over the tree rings and no one will notice!’ So I find it interesting that you back Michael Mann. I know that Michael Mann later on had the Medieval Warm Period reappear.”
Vahrenholt then reminded Stocker there are numerous temperature reconstructions from all over the world and they all show cyclic temperature developments over the past thousand years.
Needless to say, the hockey stick was not brought up again during the debate.
At this point Stocker was out of arguments and countered (strangely) that he tallied up all the references in Vahrenholt’s book and found that 37.3% of them did not cite peer-reviewed literature, and therefore he found Vahrenholt audacious in challenging the IPCC reports.
Vahrenholt responded by explaining the difference between a book designed to communicate a message to the general public and a scientific assessment for policymakers:
That tells me what level you people operate at [laughter]. That’s a book that attempts to reach the people, a book that tries to convey the complex science. Of course I’ll also quote Der Spiegel; of course I’ll quote the NZZ when I want to explain how the debate stands in Switzerland. It is not a scientific body of literature that contains only scientific quotes. But of the 900 references, 600 are of original scientific sources. For the book to be interesting, it is necessary to quote Gerhard Schröder, and we quote Herr Schellnhuber, who said in 2007 – you can see it in Youtube – that in 35 years the Himalayan glaciers will be gone. You can go back and read it. Of course it is not a scientific source, but it is allowed.”
Now that’s killing two birds (Stocker and Schellnhuber) with one stone.
I expect a few members audience by now have picked up a copy of Vahrenholt’s and Lüning’s book, Die kalte Sonne, and that we’ll soon have a few more skeptics on our side.
The moderator also seemed to be skeptical as well, expressing doubt about the models and asking Stocker if the science indeed perhaps involves some hysteria.
4 responses to “Vahrenholt “Provokes” Stocker By Calling Mann’s Hockey Stick “Fake” And Challenging IPCC”
I apologize for being off subject, but I thought this may be interesting: A review of “Global Warming: How Gaia Replaced God”, h++p://pjmedia.com/blog/global-warning-how-gaia-replaced-god/
and a very fine comment regarding US and global (and I would think European) energy options: h++p://pjmedia.com/blog/global-warning-how-gaia-replaced-god/#comment-3377777
Excellent argument by Dr Vahrenholt. The hockey stick is a basic fundament of AGW, that’s why they furiously defend it.
Stocker…”found that 37.3% of them did not cite peer-reviewed literature”
Such precision and such cheap rethoric.
Fritz had a real high-powered job in a technical capacity in a very competitive job market. I would be surprised if he didn’t wipe the floor with the dumb academic fool!