On March 17, Germany’s Helmholtz Association held a podium discussion in Berlin. The title: “What can we believe? The climate debate and its impacts”.
Climate science and policy panel discussion in Berlin, March 17, 2014. Photo: Helmholtz Association
I wrote about this almost 6 weeks ago, read here. What’s a bit special about this podium discussion is that one skeptic, Dr. Peter Heller of Science Skeptical, was allowed to take part on the panel of 5 experts.
The five experts discussed climate science and the uncertainty surrounding it. The Helmholtz Association has since released a report on the event.
There is no concensus
On the claim there is a consensus, the Helmholtz Association panel discussion clearly dumps cold water on that in its article right off the bat, writing in the introduction:
Experts dispute the extent, consequences and causes of climate change.”
Hans von Storch, a critic of science actively telling policymakers what to do, however then said:
Global warming is a fact and cannot be scientifically explained without the observed increase in greenhouse gases.”
But this is statement that everyone agrees on, including skeptics. Unfortunately von Storch does not say how much of the warming is due to greenhouse gases, which is not a surprise because no one knows the answer to that question. Is it 5%? 20% 50% or 95%?
Andreas Hense, Professor for Climate Dynamics and the University of Bonn, reminds that there is uncertainty involved in the science and adds:
But what we do know with a relatively high accuracy, with high probability, is that certain climate variables such as the upper air temperature over the last 100 or 120 years have changed due to man-made influences, but not only because man-made influences but also volcanic influences or solar influences.”
So natural factors are being acknowledged after all. The Helmholtz article writes that the panel member opinions on the magnitudes the different factors have on climate “diverged”, thus confirming that there is no consensus.
Von Storch fears a role for science in policymaking
The Helmholtz article also writes that many scientists feel they are being crowded into a role in which they do not feel comfortable:
Hense said that he now avoids all discussions with the media. Von Storch said he even fears science taking a role in the political decision processes which they are not entitled to take.”
Schellnhuber’s approach roundly rejected
Werner Krauss at Klimazwiebel also reports on the podium discussion, and writes that the 2°C target of was rejected unanimously by the panelists (4 of 5 of whom were warmists) and that “a Herr Schellnhuber was sorely missed and thoroughly dissed – everyone agreed on the rejection of the scientifically dubious limits such as the 2°C target or measures that are not democratically legitimized.”
So all of us here in Germany can breath a sigh of relief in that even warmists think the Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber’s master plan for a great transformation of society and its calls for a watering down of democracy is going too far.
Hopefully the Helmholtz Association will post the video of this worthwhile event in the days ahead.
23 responses to “Hans von Storch “Fears Science Taking Role In Political Decision Processes” … German Expert Panel Rejects 2°C Target”
“The Helmholtz article also writes that many scientists feel they are being crowded into a role in which they do not feel comfortable:”
But I’m sure they enjoyed the funding.
“everyone agreed on the rejection of the scientifically dubious limits such as the 2°C target or measures that are not democratically legitimized.”
Ooooh Aaaah; suddenly we’re all democrats. Bit of panic maybe?
I have two problems with statements attributed to a “scientific panel”:
1) Hense’s comment about “high accuracy and high probability that certain climate variables have changed” [over the course of the past two centuries due to both human and natural factors].
2) “rejection of scientifically dubious limits such as the 2 deg C target and measures that are not democratically legitimized.”
The first one is incoherent unless one can actually separate the natural from the man-made.
The second one conflates policy and science. It is correct to point out that the 2 deg C figure is arbitrary and largely void of any scientific basis (let alone achievable or desirable); but it is out of the realm of a scientific panel to whine about democratic legitimacy! They should stick to what has scientific rigour and what does not. Leave the politics to the voters! By conferring a value to democratic decisions, they play into the “scientific consensus” trap which has so many lay people confused about what is ‘sound policy.’
Kurt in Switzerland
Agree Kurt, but I would call the first statement totally meaningless. High accuracy: how accurate? High probability: how high and how established? Certain climate variables: what variables? Have changed: how much and in what direction? Due to both human and natural factors: what factors?
Yesterday my doctor said: ‘With high accuracy and high probability I have established that certain body variables of you have changed over the course of the past two years due to both your own behaviour and everything else’. I will keep him as my doctor because he has a sense of humour.
I have a problem with the statement that “global warming is a fact.” we know that GISS, GHCN, and the other agencies that feed off their data, have been adjusting the past down and the present day up for a total difference of at least 0.5°C and perhaps more. One study is found here.
Another here, that names names:
There are many more discoveries like these.
There is no proof that the 1930’s weren’t just as warm as the last 15 years. So global warming is only a fact based on the adjustments. In that sense only is it “man made”.
Satellites show no significant global warming from 1978-1997. Global warming from 1880-1940 is not blamed on CO2. There has been no global warming since 1998. The only global warming that we can be sure of is the warming that occurred during the 1998 El Nino which is surely a natural process. If there was a slight warming in the two decades before that, it could be easily explained, again, by the influence of El Nino’s
A Green politician and Energiewende minister from Schleswig Holstein claims in socialist paper Die Zeit that the Energiewende makes us independent from evil authoritarian regimes (by which he basically means Russia; he does not mention muslim states in this regard; no wonder; as the Greens want to attract the muslim vote in Germany.)
I read through all of it. At no point does he mention the lack of energy storage or need for backup generation.
Also, he claims that the “decentralized” electricity generation makes for a more equal society.
He mentions neither saving the planet from Global Warming nor environmental protection as motivations for the Energiewende.
His argument that cutting off trade with Russia will lead to more political stability is of course entirely backwards.
The way to ensure energy and heat next winter for large areas of Europe is to come to an agreement with Putin in the meantime. Barring that, there’s gas from Iran or from N. Africa and some other Middle East sources. (And, of course, the “evil” nuclear power option). I could bring up coal, but that would just anger some.
Windmills and Solar Panels are hopelessly incapable of delivering to full capacity on demand. Especially during the Winter. If a politician doesn’t know that, he should be summarily voted out of office.
Kurt in Switzerland
“If a politician doesn’t know that, he should be summarily voted out of office.”
And what should such an idiot do outside of government, in the private industry? No company operating in a free market has any use for such a person. Unfortunately the only places for such people are either in government, or in its dependency.
But you’re right – they really should not be in government!
Excellent questions by the interviewer in this summary:
Pörtner and Settele are believers (in manmade catastrophe). They are also biologists – therefore not particularly qualified to scientifically address cause-effect of supposed anthropogenic global warming.
Andreas Hense, who’s been studying circulation models for two and a half decades, can’t do any better than to compare uncertainty in climate science to the danger in crossing the Autobahn vs. a corn field.
He, too, is a believer. Suffering from modelitis.
Kurt in Switzerland
If the politicians are going to sit on their hands and ignore science, then you will see scientists become more and more outspoken.
And quite frankly…..I think that is more than appropriate. I think they learned their lesson from the tobacco industry debacle, where they watched as the tobacco companies…..with the help of The Heartland Institute, and others……….lied for decades.
Whether the issue is tobacco, global warming, comets endangering the earth, food, water issues, or a myriad of other scientific issues…..it is quite appropariate for scientists to get involved. We obviously don’t want to leave it up to the lobbyists…….THAT MUCH WE KNOW.
The issue here is not about whether or not scientists should be producing science that society can use – everyone agrees that they should. The issue that HvS is talking about is whether a small group of scientists should be telling society what policy to use. They should not. That has to be decided by society through a discussion where all the different interest groups participate.
With tobacco, the scientists merely produced data that showed tobacco was unhealthy. It was then society deciding whether or not (or to what extent) to ban it, tax it or whatever. Note how tobacco and smoking were never banned and society was left to decide the acceptable compromises. The scientists didn’t come out and say ban it altogether.
With carbon, what we have are a few scientists from one single field calling for a ban and telling the rest of the world what the policy has to be and that all other interest groups are illegitimate and shouldn’t be allowed to participate in the discussion for deciding policy. So it’s clear that these scientists are just plain nuts.
“We obviously don’t want to leave it up to the lobbyists…….THAT MUCH WE KNOW. ”
The solar and wind industry lobby? The palm oil industry? The biodiesel industry? The global warming industry? The lobby of climate scientists making a killing with warming? The bureaucrats standing to gain lots of regulatory power? The gas and fracking industry (who would profit from the ban of oil and coal)?
How about listening to all sides and participants and not just the ones you like? That’s how a real democracy works.
ALL LOBBYISTS. No matter which side of the aisle they are on. They are handsomly paid prostitutes. That is why, as an INDEPEDENT, I find it fascinating that many people haven’t figured out that lobbyists are at the core of most political problems.
“How about listening to all sides and participants and not just the ones you like? That’s how a real democracy works.”
I couldn’t agree more. But in listening to “other people”….I look for FACTS, not opinions. And regardless of what the issue is, I am not going to take much stock in what a lobbyist says……knowing that the lobbyist is PAID TO GIVE THAT OPINION.
What I find amusing….is people who make up their mind (one way or the other) and then “cherry pick” only those things that support the outcome they want.
For instance……I love when people who don’t believe in global warming pick at the piece of data that the Antarctic sea ice is growing about 1% per decade. They look at that and say: “See….we couldn’t have global warming if sea ice is growing in Antarctica”.
Of course…..they don’t want to mention that the sea ice in the Arctic has been losing ice at 13% per decade. And they don’t want to mention that the entire Antartic ice sheet is losing MASS…..it is only the surface ice surrounding some of the Antarctic that has grown slightly.
And they especially don’t want to look at research that explains WHY the Antartic sea ice is growing slightly because of surface water around the Antarctic ice sheet has “frshened” (less salinity) and thus freezes more easily.
By the way……more new research on ocean currents and the slow down of currents in the Antarctic especially:
You see…..the truth NEVER HIDES. Lobbyists are paid to give their CLIENTS VIEW a voice….regardless of whether that voice is a lie or not doesn’t matter to a lobbyist. ANY LOBBYIST.
Why would anyone EVER listen to someone that you know has been paid to give their clients postion……..regardless of wheather it was true or not?
THAT….is why ALL LOBBYISTS shouldn’t be listened to. You should look for FACTS AND SCIENCE…..and that applies to any issue….not just global warming. ALL ISSUES.
Somebody impersonates Buffy.
If I didn’t have ethics, science, and facts on my side…..I would likely respond just like you. Fortunately…..I have ethics, and science, and facts on my side.
Buddy is a lobbyist, and we should take his advice,… and ignore him.
21. März 2014 at 12:45 | Permalink | Reply
“We obviously don’t want to leave it up to the lobbyists…….THAT MUCH WE KNOW.”
With “we”, Buffy talks about himself and his rent seeking buddies. He is trying to profit from the renewables subsidy gravy train, as should be obvious from his previous comments.
When I was working at a German solar company they constantly had managers travel to Brussels to lobby the EU commission for new subsidies. Basically the solar industry at that time invested nearly all their profits into lobbying; far mor than they invested into product development.
This HAS to be so in a political market; as the policy changes influence your profitability MUCH more than technical merit of your products.
The Solar Industry in my experience EPITOMIZES the word lobbyism.
“With “we”, Buffy talks about himself and his rent seeking buddies.”
I don’t have “rent seeking buddies”. Only home owners. Sorry about that Dirk:)
It’s too bad that you always have to try and “sling arrows” instead of attack the actual issue with facts and science. Your methods of “argument” are those that are used by someone who doesn’t have facts or science on your side.
You might want to grow up and stick to the issue at hand instead of using childish statements like that…….
You see…..in many ways…..global warming is NOT a political issue. The climate doesn’t care one iota whether someone is a conservative or a liberal, or an Independent like myself. The climate only changes based on the inputs…..pure and simple. PHYSICS and science.
Which is probably why you never post any scientific facts, any scientific studies, and instead resort to childish retorts.
Global warming is an important issue. I think it’s about time that you should treat it as such…..and zero in on the physics and science of the issue.
Buffy. I still think you’re either a Brussels bureaucrat lardass or an unpaid OfA operative. Because the Global Warming movement is such a giant feeding trough. Nothing personal. Nearly everyone on your side sits at the trough.
22. März 2014 at 15:58 | Permalink | Reply
“Which is probably why you never post any scientific facts, any scientific studies, and instead resort to childish retorts.”
Buffy, I’m long past the point of trying to refute the rubbish sciencedaily press releases you link to; as I’ve long recognized that the Global Warming movement is a political power grab and a huge taxpayer looting at the same time, and that the climate scientists are simply the bought and paid for tools enabling that theft.
And why should I care for your pseudoscience when this suffices to debunk CO2AGW and the computer models:
Pseudoscience? Really? Here is some NASA pseudoscience:
That’s a good start for you Dirk. If you look at science data like that, even you can see what is happening…..
A small step toward common sense. But the small steps are coming more frequently and from more people. At this rate by 2015 the small steps will be running. And running the hardest will be scientists who want to be employable in the future. A few politicians will be running for cover and trying to correct “misquotes” about AGW.
[…] https://notrickszone.com/2014/03/20/hans-von-storch-fears-science-taking-role-in-political-decision-p… […]