Professor Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber spoke at the Stakeholders Conference on the 2015 Agreement last week.
You can watch him speak from the 2:30 – 37:00 mark. He made a couple of surprising statements.
Schellnhuber starts off by claiming that media reports saying there’s no consensus are false and are only designed to spread confusion.
He claims that there is no dispute about CO2 trapping heat. But that’s just a diversion from the real issue: CO2 sensitivity and feedbacks. Of course CO2 is a greenhouse gas. But the question is: How much warming will a doubling of CO2 lead to? Not much, or a lot? That’s what is being hotly debated. A number of recent peer-reviewed studies and data are showing that the warming indeed will be small.
But to keep the climate catastrophe scenario alive, Schellnhuber in his speech cherry-picks only the literature that supports a massive warming. He ignores all the other papers that show significantly reduced sensitivity and natural factors.
Concedes warming has stopped, blames the oceans
At the 10-minute mark, Schellnhuber thinks he can use the totally discredited Marcott paper to support the AGW theory! The clueless audience is wowed by it. One has to ask if Schellnhuber is maliciously misleading his audience, or is he totally disconnected from reality and unaware that the Marcott paper is worthless?
At the 11:25 mark, he concedes that warming has paused, calling it “a slowdown“. He says the pause is due to hidden planetary mechanisms that are stealing and hiding the heat. In the presentation he says the warming is there – if you ignore the cooling.
At the 12:30 mark Schellnhuber says that the warming in fact “didn’t really pause, but slowed“. He blames the missing warming on the La Nina’s of the 2000s sucking up the heat. “Something is going on in the ocean. […] We haven’t identified all the mechanisms yet.” The oceans have eaten the “tremendous” heat, he explains.
Actually this may be Schellnhuber finally admitting the role of the oceans for the first time. If he blames the oceans for absorbing heat and cooling the planet for the last 10 years, then he also has to concede that they can also release heat and cause warming – as was the case from the period of 1975 – 2000 when the AMO and PDO indexes rose.
You can’t blame the oceans only when it cools, and CO2 when it warms. Time for Schellnhuber to build oceanic cycles into the models.
Concedes that we may have another decade of slowdown!
Remarkably at the 16:40 mark he concedes:
We may have another decade of warming slowdown.”
Professor Schellnhuber, another 10 years would mean a quarter of a century without warming. Not one single model predicted that. The models that you are now relying on for your catastrophic scenarios are therefore rubbish. You are not going to find a single buyer out there.
In a debate Schellnhuber would not survive the first 10 minutes.
Singles out the Economist
At the about the 17:45 mark, Schellnhuber goes after the Economist for daring to question alarmist science. Notice how he looked down at his notes, revealing he had made it a point to do so.
By the way, there has been a lot of talk…the eminent leading climate scientist who sits on the editorial board at the Economist…that was a joke, you may laugh… ha ha, have actually said that climate sensitivity is smaller than we thought.”
How dare the unqualified Economist question the authoritative scientists?
This of course means “the global organs will be pushed to destabilization and collapse“. You see, “tremendous amounts of heat are being processed by the planetary machinery” and will come back (after our lifetimes) with a vengeance.
What a con-job.
Dignity or death…9 billion people are too much
At about the 8:30 mark he shows a graphic depicting the climate over the last 100,000 years, correctly stating that the natural climate is often very unstable and that the last 10,000 years have been a “grace period” for mankind. But eerily he asks the audience:
Can we expect in such a wildly fluctuating climate to support 9 billion lives in dignity? Don’t think so.”
What he means by this is open to interpretation. But let’s recall that he once said the optimum population for the planet is about 1 billion, and that “at 9 billion the planet would explode.”
Source of photo / graphic: scic.ec.europa.eu/streaming