Professor Fritz Vahrenholt and Dr. Sebastian Lüning recently took a look at the odd behavior of former IPCC author Peter Wadhams, who now suspects the oil industy of being behind the accidental deaths of three climate colleagues.
Three British scientists have lost their lives since 2013 – all three had been involved in Arctic research. One was killed by lightning, another fell down some stairs, and the other killed in a bicycle accident. This series of unfortunate, yet totally unrelated, incidents is enough to have Wadhams thinking it may well be a sinisterly crafted campaign orchestrated by Big Oil.
The Telegraph reported:
Three scientists investigating melting Arctic ice may have been assassinated, professor claims
Cambridge Professor Peter Wadhams suspects the deaths of the three scientists were more than just an ‘extraordinary’ coincidence […] The three scientists he identified – Seymour Laxon and Katherine Giles, both climate change scientists at University College London, and Tim Boyd of the Scottish Association for marine Science – all died within the space of a few months in early 2013. Professor laxon fell down a flight of stairs at a New year’s Eve party at a house in Essex while Dr Giles died when she was in collision with a lorry when cycling to work in London. Dr Boyd is thought to have been struck by lightning while walking in Scotland. […] Asked who might have wanted them out the way, [Wadhams] replied: “I can only think of the oil lobby but I don’t think the oil lobby goes around killing people.”
Read the entire aricle at The Telegraph.
Vahrenholt and Lüning write that Wadhams’s behavior appears to be part of a larger pattern of behavioral eccentricity. They write:”Already in the climate discussion he’s been turning off his colleagues totally with his hysterical climate catastrophe scenarios.” For example Wadhams is among those who promote the Arctic sea ice death spiral, telling the world in 2012 that the Arctic would be toast by the year 2016. Even the most hardcore alarmists think that particular scenario is preposterous. Last September Gavin Schmidt wrote at Twitter:
Some anticipation for Peter Wadhams. Audience members already crying, ‘Wadhams still using graphs with ridiculous projections with no basis in physics,’ ‘Wadhams now onto methane pulse of 50 GT. But no better justified than his previous statements,’ and ‘Wadhams clearly states that there is no physics behind his extrapolations.’”
The Arctic sea ice Armageddon is not the only nutty fantasy Wadhams is obsessed with. He is also hysterical about the methane bombe. Spiegel Online reported in 2013 that a group of leading scientists declared an imminent climate catastrophe.
Scientist Gail Whiteman of Ersmus University in Rotterdam calculated together with Chris Hope and Peter Wadhams of the University of Cambridge how expensive climate change at the poles could be for the entire world. The researchers arrived at a figure of 60 trillion dollars– that is about equivalent to the entire global output for 2012. […] In 2010 Natalia Schachowa of the University of Fairbanks in Alaska for the first time reported on the unsettling phenomenon of methane release in Siberia, and that it could be a sort of Arctic time bomb.
It turns out that this time bomb is pure fantasy from hysterical minds. There is no scientific basis for it. The estimates of damage are also of no value.
Renowned climate scientist Judith Curry made it clear in an article at her blog titled “Arctic time bomb (?)” that a large number of colleagues do not share the Arctic methane catastrophe. Even Gavin Schmidt of NASA sees only a minimal chance of a rash release of methane in the Arctic. Tipping point specialist Tim Lenton of Exeter University also sees no urgent danger and sees a process happening only on a scale of tens of thousands of years. A report by Carolyn D. Ruppel in 2011 also shows the same. Curry also mentions other critical opinions, like those of David Archer of the University of Chicago who calls the methane climate bomb scenario “completely baseless”.
Lüning and Vahrenholt conclude that when one considers the recent conspiraicy theories made by Wadhams along with his wild climate claims, “A picture is created of a man who has manoevered himsefl into a extremely far fringe corner in the climate dicussion. Wadhms has squandered is credibilty. There should be no place for an activist. on a referee panel like the IPCC.”