Last week German fundamentalist-green (now-confirmed) Die Zeit came out with a comprehensive 3-page broadsheet portrayal of the climate skeptic movement, which, not surprisingly, was unflattering. It’s a perception that the German greens are trying to infuse in it’s readers – the truth as they want to see it, but sadly for them it’s totally remote from reality.
Image source: http://www.eike–klima–energie.eu/-die-klimakrieger/
What follow are reactions from some leading German skeptics (and others), who kindly provided their comments:
Dr. Sebastian Lüning
Geologist, co-author of “Die kalte Sonne“:
Lüning commented (by e-mail) on Die Zeit‘s claim the book “had been ripped apart by experts” and the 40% CO2 increase:
We’ve debunked the critiques on our blog in the ‘medienecho‘ section and have demonstrated that there was a lot of wishful thinking and bandwagon mentality. CO2 40% up: Well, that might be numerically true, if one takes 280 ppm to 390 ppm. But more important is the real CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, which has gone up by 0.0110% = 110 ppm in real money. Sounds much less dramatic and is therefore not worded in this way.”
(Much more on Lüning‘s and Vahrenholt’s reaction later this week.)
Dr. Hans Labohm (Holland)
Journalist at Der Standaard: (left a reader comment)
As a Dutchman I’ve always thought ‘Die Zeit’ was a quality newspaper. Now I have to correct that impression. The article in question testifies of shoddy if not malicious journalism.
In the Netherlands the relationship between AGW protagonists and antagonists has markedly improved over the last few years. A broad majority of political parties in Parliament, including the Labour Party, has requested the government to include climate sceptics in the scientific debate. They would never have done so if they would have believed the story by Kohlenberg and Blasberg was a truthful reflection of reality. The dialogue is now going on. One of the most visible manifestations to date is climatedialogue.org, which is run by a mixed group of scientists, including both AGW adherents and climate sceptics. It is sponsored by the government.
It shows that it can be done without polarization. Just follow the rules of sound scientific practice, including an open dialogue.”
Also read Dr. Labohm’s story here.
Prof. Fred Singer (USA)
(No introduction needed) sent by e-mail:
The old, well-worn lie: ‘Singer is in the pay of the oil industry’ – copied, no doubt, from such discredited sources as desmogblog. AGAIN –just for the record – I am not supported by any energy company – or by any industry for that matter.
My payments from Heartland are book royalties. Heartland has published three of my NIPCC books in the past 4 years. And we expect to do two more books in 2013. BTW, all my book royalties go to SEPP — not to me personally.
The scandalmongers from DIE ZEIT could have gotten all this info from me in the interview. All they had to do was ask me. Obviously, they were afraid of learning the truth.”
Amazing investigative journalism – they never even bothered to ask Singer about his funding!
Dr. Holger Thuß
President, EIKE (by e-mail):
I find it remarkable that there was no word about the scientific criticism on the hockey stick graph (which was completely discredited to its core by scientific circles). Quotes were taken out of context.
Much paper was wasted chewing and chewing on nonsense put out by climate extremist Wikipedia and bloggers. I find this outrageous.
The subliminal criticism on the anti-communist view of climate skeptics, some of them children of Holocaust survivors, is a slap in the face to victims of dictatorships and an embarrassment for German journalism.”
Note: Fred Singer, for example, actually fled the Nazis.
Vice President, EIKE:
It’s obvious that the hot scenarios coming from the computer models have not generated enough panic up to now. Therefore it is necessary in addition to unleash top investigative journalists in order to expose those who oppose the panic-mongering, the so-called “well-paid mercenaries”, and to disarm them.
Regarding the hundreds of millions of dollars that climate deniers supposedly received from evil industry, the authors happened to forget the sources of this funding. In the spirit of ‘good and investigative journalism’ The authors just claim the climate deniers simply received it.
Only blind journalists and those who are unwilling to see the truth are good journalists at Die Zeit. A classic example for Orwellian rhetoric.”
That’s some of the reaction so far to the drive-by smear of climate science skepticism in Germany. More is sure to come.