Vahrenholt Blasts Der Spiegel’s Print Doomsday Article: “Extremely Poorly Researched”…”Half Truth”

Some weeks ago the print edition of Der Spiegel presented the latest in its decade’s long series of climate scares, read background here and here.

Last month leading German climate science critic Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt sent a deservedly harsh letter to Spiegel, blasting the news weekly’s poor journalistic quality. That letter has now been published at his Die kalte Sonne site. Here’s the letter translated in English:

From: Fritz Vahrenholt
To: Spiegel
Sent: 25. February 2015
Re: Reader’s Letter on “Der verheizte Planet” in Spiegel 9/2015


Dear Ladies and Gentlemen

The article ‘verheizte Planet’ [Heated planet] is an extremely poorly researched article that does not hold up to scientific review. As the basis for the temperature development, the time period of 1950 – 1980 was used. This was a period of cooling. Der Spiegel in its issue no. 33/1974 even carried the title ‘Is a new ice age approaching?’ In the latest article the period before 1950 in the graphic was cut out; it had been some 0.3°C warmer – a sign of natural cycles, which was completely hidden in the article. It is thus little wonder that the fact global mean temperature has not risen significantly over the past 16 years despite the constantly climbing CO2 emissions went unmentioned. Numerous recently published scientific publications show that more than 50% of the temperature rise from 1975 to 2000 is due to natural factors (solar influence, cyclic oceanic currents).

Also on the part looking at catastrophes, only the half-truth is reported. The rise shown by the EM-Dat databank from von 1970 to 2000 is owing to the fact that the databank was first set up in 1988. It is also questionable that the time period before 1970 was cut off by Spiegel because the data are close to zero as back then there were no systematic reporting. Overall the EM-Dat also records earthquakes and cold disasters. The fact that natural disaster have declined considerably since 2000 of course does not fit well with the narrative. Even the IPCC itself writes in its last report of 2013 that there is no real evidence of an increase in hurricanes, droughts, flooding, hail and storms. The Sahara is also not expanding, as the article describes, rather it is getting greener. This is shown by satellite data. Such a thing should not happen at Spiegel.


Prof. Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt
Author ‘The Neglected Sun – How the sun precludes climate catastrophe’
Sole Director
German Wildlife Foundation


32 responses to “Vahrenholt Blasts Der Spiegel’s Print Doomsday Article: “Extremely Poorly Researched”…”Half Truth””

  1. John F. Hultquist

    Initially I did not believe in parallel universes but how can I not believe when others (Der Spiegel is not the only group) present such things as “the Heated planet” that seriously differ from my own reality?

    When I look out the window I still see Ponderosa pines, not palms. The latter were found here about 100 Million years ago. That’s climate change.

  2. David Appell

    The letter writer wrote:
    “In the latest article the period before 1950 in the graphic was cut out; it had been some 0.3°C warmer.”

    Huh? That is not true.

    1. Ed Caryl

      Yes it is:
      1944.5 0.150333
      1945.5 0.033
      1946.5 -0.0689167
      1947.5 -0.0395
      1948.5 -0.0368333
      1949.5 -0.07775
      1950.5 -0.177167
      I just took you Woodfortrees link, took the mean (12 points), selected every 12th point, and this is the data.

      That is what I mean about Confirmation Bias.

      1. sod

        “I just took you Woodfortrees link, took the mean (12 points), selected every 12th point, and this is the data. ”

        I think you are doing it wrong. The function you want to use is “compress” (it takes the average over the number of months, 60 for 5 years, for example).

        The big difference is artificial, it is caused by using a maximum as a starting point.

      2. David Appell

        The confirmation bias is yours. It makes no scientific sense to compare the 1940s to one year, 1950. And your period of comparison is only 6 years, which says absolutely nothing about climate.

        Finally, those six years are 0.17 C warmer than 1950, not 0.3 warmer.

        1. Ed Caryl

          I’m just saying that 1944 was .327°C warmer than 1950. The letter writer didn’t say which period.

          1. sod

            “I’m just saying that 1944 was .327°C warmer than 1950. The letter writer didn’t say which period.”

            The tranlation in the blog post is correct and says:

            “In the latest article the period before 1950 in the graphic was cut out; it had been some 0.3°C warmer – a sign of natural cycles, which was completely hidden in the article.”

            If i tell you that last week (= period) the temperature fell by 20 degrees, you would assume that i took a meaningful set of numbers (an average?) and not that i had taken the highest daytime and lowest nightime temperature.

            Again look at my graph with 5 year averages:


            The uptick for a significant “period” in the 40s is tiny. The only sensible argument that i see from a “sceptic” position in that graph is the slight similarity between therise from 1910 to 40 to the last deacdes (but the similarity is vanishing with every year..).

          2. AndyG55

            MadCrud.. roflmao..

            Do you still believe all those adjustments?

            really ?

          3. AndyG55

            Maybe Tom Wigley can help you !

      3. AndyG55

        Hansen clearly shows a cooling trend from a peak around 1930 to a low point in 1978, a drop of about 1ºC.

        And as we know from satellite measurements that there has only been about 0.7ºC warming since then, it is obvious that we are currently cooler than the 1930’s by about 0.3ºC.

        The use of the much manipulated MadCrud non-data, is a meaningless game… but do keep going, rotten apple, for laughs. !

        1. sod

          Your data is for the US only.

          You use land surface data for the US and then add satellite data for the globe?

          Sorry, but that does not make any sense at all.

          1. AndyG55

            US only satellite data only shows 0.7ºF = approx. 0.4ºC warming since 1979.

            The US has cooled since the 1940’s

            MadCrud is to much of a mess to use for any purpose except climate propaganda.

          2. David Appell

            No, the USA hasn’t cooled since the 1940s.

            According to NOAA data for the USA48, the 1940s average temperature was 52.1 F.

            For the last 10 years ending in 2014, it was 53.3 F.


          3. AndyG55

            According to NOAA.. seriously.. roflmao !!

            Do you luv Jimmy and Gavin?

            Do you luv their manipulation of past temperatures.. always downwards?

            Let’s look at reality,

            look at the dat before Hansen “got the bug”

            big peak near 1940.. now.. all gone.. Tom Wigley and all.. that warm peak was soooo inconvenient, so let’s get rid of it.

            Since 2005, when USCRN was established, (the only attempt apart from the satellite data that tries to get an even spread of temperatures untainted by UHI effects and data adjustment), the US has cooled at a rate of approximately 0.5C per decade.

            Warming in the US, is a thing of the past.

            Anything touched by the alarmista brigade is nothing but a load of farcical excre….

            Really, rotten apple.. you have to stop proselytising, you cause us too much laughter.

  3. David Appell

    Wow, a Newsweek article. That’s certainly the cutting edge of scientific enterprise.

    There was no consensus on global cooling in the ’60s and ’70s. It was a time before satellites were routinely giving loads of observational data, like today, and scientists were not very sure what was going on. A literature survey of that time found there was no cooling consensus:

    “The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus,” W. Peterson et al, Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 89, 1325–1337, 2008

    In fact, by 1965 plenty of scientists had already been warning about global warming from the buildup of greenhouse gases, and by the late ’60s climate models were calculating the warming expected from CO2. List of papers here:

    1. Mikky

      So, 50 years after these warnings in 1965 (when I was 10 years old and can remember the weather), how is the climate today relative to then? PRETTY MUCH THE SAME.

      1. David Appell

        a) I doubt you remember the weather when you were 10 years old, except maybe for a few big snowstorms. (The plural of anecdote isn’t data.)
        b) the weather in your neck of the woods says nothing about global climate.
        c) in no way is today’s global climate what is was in the 1960s — it’s 0.8 C warmer, and trillions of tons of ice have vanished.

        1. AndyG55

          Don’t need to remember.. its all in the climate record.

          Nothing out of the ordinary is happening with the climate. Normal tiny ups and downs.

          Hurricanes, down a bit, gees, they even have to invent the term “superstorm” because of the lack of genuine hurricanes. !

          Temperature, maybe a fraction of a degree higher than the very cold Little Ice Age.

          Rainfall.. we still have droughts and floods in various places, but probably less often and less severe than the past.

          What is unusual is the zero trend in temperature for an 18 year period.

          The “climate” has actually exceptionally stable for the last couple of hundred years, thanks to the increase in atmospheric CO2 and the slight warming.

          Get used to that fact, and pray that don’t have the stupidly to ever allow the CO2 level to drop to the dangerously low level of 280ppm or lower.

    2. AndyG55

      “like today, and scientists were not very sure what was going on ”

      So nothing has changed in climate science.. except that its now “settled” that they haven’t got a clue.

      I am noting the panic starting to set in as they can see the high probability of a cooling trend in the near future, associated with the quite Sun.

      That is of course why you are here, isn’t it..

      … still trying to sell the unsellable, like a shonky car salesman.

      1. David Appell

        You purposely took my sentence out of context — the “like today” refers to the satellites. I’m sure you knew that, as evidence by your incorrect quotation (no elipses, at the very least).

        1. AndyG55

          Go talk with someone who will listen to your propaganda crap. Your slimy reputation will get you no foothold here, we know you as what you are.

          You are wasting your worthless time.

          Go back to your grandma’s basement !!

        2. AndyG55

          “You purposely took my sentence out of context”

          Something you would never do, of course.. roflmao!!

          Do you need a tissue ??

    3. AndyG55

      Hansen shows nearly a whole degree Celsius from 1932 to 1978.

      You should also read this thread

      PLENTY of evidence of a global cooling scare, from many scientists.

      1. David Appell

        Then why isn’t that “cooling scare” reflected in the scientific literature?

        1. AndyG55

          Because the “climate scientists” (lol) back then would rather talk to the press than actually present any real science..

          Nothing much has changed, has it !

        2. AndyG55
        3. AndyG55

          Ask yourself.. why did these guys go to the press, rather than publish real science..

          Like now.. they didn’t have anything except unfounded, unproven speculation

  4. Planetary_Physics_group

    This week the number of comments on Roy Spencer’s February data thread passed the 1,000 mark. This has probably been the most comprehensive discussion of the physics of the atmosphere that has ever been all brought together in a single climate blog thread.

    There is a summary on a new thread starting here and I recommend all should read the author’s comments in that newer thread.

  5. yonason

    ““Extremely Poorly Researched”…”Half Truth””

    That’s what it takes to be a “journalist” these days.

  6. AndyG55

    Who turned over Appell’s rock, and let the worm out of his grandma’s basement?

    Panic at the coming cooling.. so obvious, so blatant.

    These trolls know they are on a hiding to nothing, and have zero evidence to support their failed hypothesis.

    Its all just random noise now.

    1. AndyG55

      Here’s the thing, rotten apple.

      If you want to sprout your propaganda BS.. get your own blog……

      …but you know that no-one would be bother with it,

      …very few of the alarmist ranter web sites draw more than a few posts or visitors.

      That’s why you are here, attention seeking as usual..

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