“Horror Scenarios Already On Shaky Ground” …Leading Geo-Archeologist Slams Climate Hysteria!

The online German FOCUS here reports that the climate conferences and overall movement have turned more into hysteria and increasingly are becoming remote of fact. Good to see that the German media is finally backing off from all the hysteria and lending a bit of coverage to more moderate, non-hysterical voices.

Tol: “Very limited impact”

FOCUS writes that “some leading scientists are calling for sense instead of hysteria“, quoting renowned Dutch economist Richard Tol: “During the entire 21st century climate change will likely have only a very limited impact on the economy and human prosperity.”

Risk sacrificing prosperity for a huge “wind turbine graveyard”

Another skeptic voice that has become alarmed over the hysterical claims being made by scientists and activists is conservative top politician Arnold Vaatz, who cautions against placing too much emphasis only on projections from computer models. Vaatz, a trained mathematician, warns that if the models are refuted by observations, we could wind up with a “climate panic-driven overhaul of our society that will be a deadly false path for our economy and prove to be the highpoint in the waste of resources.” Vaatz adds:

Do our citizens really want to sacrifice their good standard of living for a wind park graveyard in Germany?“

Sahara greening “absolutely positive trend”

Another increasingly skeptical voice presented by FOCUS is that of geo-archeologist Stefan Kröpelin of the University of Cologne, a veteran researcher of the Saharan climate history. He reminds that the recent climate change has been a blessing for the Sahara, which has seen a greening due to more precipitation: “For many millions of people it is an absolutely positive trend.”

FOCUS adds that “studies and long-term observations also show that many many horror scenarios are unfounded.”

The German news weekly writes that Richard Tol analyzed a number of studies and concluded that a global warming of 1.7°C would produce “net advantages for man and the earth’s ecosystem.”

Another leading politician who is becoming increasingly doubtful of the climate hysteria is Peter Ramsauer (CSU) who says the massive and ideologically driven spending of billions and billions to reduce CO2 “is beyond every political and economic reason“. FOCUS quotes Ramsauer:  “We need a climate policy with sense instead of one with green ideology!

FOCUS adds:

For experts like Ramsauer, climate policy has gotten totally out of hand.”

Potsdam science “on shaky ground”

Increasingly more and more German politicians are growing dissastisfied with the wild doom & gloom scenarios put out by the infamously alarmist Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), directed by Professor Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber. But also German scientists are becoming aggravated by the inflated horror scanrios churned out by the PIK scientists. FOCUS reports that according to geoarcheologist Kröpelin “some of the ‘horror scenarios of the Potsdam scientists’ are already on shaky ground“.

Kröpelin tells FOCUS:

I often wish for more scientific self-imposed skepticism instead of dogmatism.”

FOCUS adds that CO2 is being unfairly singled out as only a climate-killing gas and reminds us, citing Hans-Joachim Weigel, Director of the Johann Heinrich von Thünen-Institute for Biodiversity, that it’s an “essential building block of photosynthesis and thus the basis for all life“.

The FOCUS slap-down of climate hysteria is just the latest of a series of recent articles by leading German media outlets expressing criticism of the spate of wild horror scenarios that have been uncritically released to the public recently.

Hopefully the media will continue bringing us such sober reporting regularly in the future. All the scare-mongering and doomsday scenarios have been a serious disservice to the field of science.


17 responses to ““Horror Scenarios Already On Shaky Ground” …Leading Geo-Archeologist Slams Climate Hysteria!”

  1. sod

    Sorry, but this article is incredibly stupid. The authors do not know the difference between climate and weather.

    “Wetterberichte können trotz aller Computermodelle nicht einmal für ein paar Tage genaue Vorhersagen treffen, aber die Wissenschaftler des Weltklimarats (IPCC) sagen die Welttemperatur für Jahrzehnte voraus.”

    If this was not Focus (a very conservative and pro “economic liberalism” tabloid), i would be surprised by so much ignorance in a single article!

    1. ClimateOtter

      Remember to tell your side that every time a hurricane, tornado, snowstorm, thunderstorm, drought or other WEATHER occurs.

    2. GP Alexander

      “surprised by so much ignorance in a single article”

      Pretty well sums up anything out of Greenpeace et al.

    3. yonason

      “Sorry, but this article is incredibly stupid. The authors do not know the difference between climate and weather.” – “sod”

      Wait! I know the difference!


      Now can I have cookie?

      The quote selected by “sod” to illustrate the “stupidity” of the article is just a sensible statement of verifiable fact; if they can’t forecast weather a few days ahead, how do they expect us to believe they can forecast climate decades to centuries in advance?

      Considering what we already know of the phenomenal failure of climate models to date…
      …anyone with a modicum of common sense can see climate models are indeed wrong far more often than short term weather forecasting models (so far, always wrong, in fact).

      Is this a new low for “sod,” or just hysterical business as usual for him?

      1. GP Alexander

        It seems to me that Paul the Octopus has a better track record for predictions than any of the warmist climatology lot.

        1. yonason

          Paul gets a taste of how skeptics are treated by warmists. 😉
          It’s tough being right, when so many want you to be wrong, or just shut up.

    4. David Johnson

      Ah so the weather-climate thing only works if alarmists use it? Glad that is cleared up then.

    5. DirkH

      sod 7. December 2015 at 10:07 PM | Permalink | Reply
      “Sorry, but this article is incredibly stupid. The authors do not know the difference between climate and weather. ”

      Said the warmunist who a day ago complained about the hottest November in Germany ever. (right after dismissing claims of a cold October as “weather, not climate”)

  2. DirkH

    Well if German Bundestag politicians suddenly discover that warmunism was all a fraud that’s because they have milked it via their wind park shares while the milking was good, and are on to the next billion Euro fraud, the islamisation of Germany (which will do wonders for the housing bubble).

    The Bundestag parties are corrupt to the core.

    1. sod

      “Well if German Bundestag politicians suddenly discover that warmunism was all a fraud that’s because they have milked it via their wind park shares while the milking was good,”

      This is a conspiracy theory.

      The article is just bad. All those arguments have been dismissed in the past. It is a conservative paper, citing extremely conservative politicians (CSU) and known “sceptic” scientists (Richard Tol).

      But the stuff presented has no substance. Look at the claim about China:

      “Der Preis dafür kann vor allem den Europäern nicht hoch genug sein. Milliarden Euro investieren sie in alternative Energiequellen, Sparprogramme, teure Technologien, strengste Grenzwerte und Dämmvorschriften, um noch das letzte Gramm Kohlendioxid einzusparen – während in China und Indien die Schornsteine rauchen”

      Just plain out false, as we see today. Peking has called for a 3 day red alert on smog and is closing factories.


      Basically, China is already tackling climate change and pollution on a completely different level than all other countries. Anyone who has been to china has noticed the solar heating systems on the roofs and the electric motorbikes in the cities.

      Mostly caused by China, CO2 output is stalling (or falling?), possibly for the second year in a row.


      1. Pethefin

        Sod for once you are right, China (and India) are handling climate change on a whole different level:


        1. sod

          The source of your text says this in the introduction:

          “What we cannot expect are reforms designed to reduce China’s car-bon emissions.”

          But that has already happened.


          The Chinese CO2 output actually fell. And the reason for this of course is a combination of a change of course and economic difficulties.

          The article tries to explain this away:

          “indicat es that coal will remain by far the dominant energy source for China in the decades ahead. And that assumes the plan encounters no practical roadblocks to implementation. Although China’s coal consumption and production last year declined (BP’s Statis- ticalReview estimates growth at 0.1%, while the Chinese government claims it shrank byalmost3%), 15 the InternationalEnergyAgency(IEA)expectsChina’scoalconsump- tion to continue to grow beyond 2020, but more slowly than in the past, unless eco- nomic growth is much lower than assumed. 16 ‘E conomic growth in China needs more energy than nuclear, gas, oil and renewables can supply’, says the IEA, so China will be ‘the coal giant for many years in the future’.”

          But it is doing so, by using IEA numbers, which are always wrong on alternative power.

          So let us wait and see.

        2. sod

          The article cited in your wuwt link is very interesting and well worth reading, even if i disagree with most of what it says. It gives good insight into chinese thinking and planning on the energy sector.

          But i am rathersure that you did not read it, before you did post the link. here is what it says:

          “Yet, when Beijing’s smog levels went ‘off the charts’ in January of 2014, the code remained at yellow. ‘Why doesn’t the government declare an emergency?’ everyone, including the state media, asked. 88 T he government is reluctant to raise the alert level, says Ma Jun, head of the Institute of Public and Environmental Affairs, because measures that would shut down the economy simply ‘are not feasible’”

          (pdf page 24)

          But exactly what is deemed impossible in the article has happened now.

          And this is easy to explain: The article was written for the Global warming policy foundation, a sceptic institute. It was written by a sceptic author and it is using sceptic sources. It then gets cited on wuwt and linked here (two sceptic blogs). It is a echochamber, with very little new information, based on very few sources which already determine the outcome.

          Please read the report, it is interesting!

      2. DirkH

        sod 8. December 2015 at 2:37 PM | Permalink | Reply
        ““Well if German Bundestag politicians suddenly discover that warmunism was all a fraud that’s because they have milked it via their wind park shares while the milking was good,”

        This is a conspiracy theory. ”

        German Members of parliament do not have to disclose their own insider business. Buy shares before you vote the subsidies up, sell them before you vote them down. OF COURSE they all got their snouts in the trough.

        You’re just defending them because you’re part of the wind mafia.

  3. Fred Colbourne

    Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds

    I wonder if this book was ever translated into German.

    Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds is a history of popular folly by Scottish journalist Charles Mackay, first published in 1841.[1] The book chronicles its subjects in three parts: “National Delusions”, “Peculiar Follies”, and “Philosophical Delusions”.


    1. David Johnson

      I’m sending SOD a copy for Christmas.

  4. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #209 | Watts Up With That?

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