On June 8 Spiegel science editor Axel Bojanowski wrote a rather harsh piece criticizing recent claims in the German media that “heavy rainfalls” were becoming more frequent in Germany when in fact there is no statistical evidence to support the claim.
He even went so far to call the claims in the media “a climate bluff”. I wrote about that Bojanowski’s Spiegel piece here.
Hat-tip: Reader Till.
Over the past few weeks Germany and parts of Europe have experienced heavy rainfalls. Unsurprisingly some catastrophe-obsessed scientists tried to link the weather to climate change. This prompted the Spiegel journalist to write in his June 8 commentary that the climate doomsday headlines made with every occurring weather anomaly seem to have become a “knee-jerk” reaction by German media outlets.
In response to his critical article, Bojanowski, a geologist by education, was met with a fierce backlash, led by Potsdam scientist Stefan Rahmstorf, who posted one his patented, carefully-crafted the-science-is-settled essays, see here.
Four days later, on June 14, at his blog here, Bojanowski shot back, defending the harsh criticism and tones he used in his critical article, and reiterated that the evidence of more days with extreme rainfall remains was non-existent and that scientists who claim otherwise are harming the discipline of science:
My criticism was simple: Weather data show no increase in days with heavy rainfalls in Germany – experts, who hide this data, or who claim the opposite, are misleading the citizens, squandering trust in science, and are making science obselete.”
On claims his criticism was exaggerated, he writes: “No. When experts – especially experts paid by the citizen – hide information or spin it, you should be able to read about this.”
None of the scientists or meteorolgists that I had criticzed supplied data that would show a long-term increase in heavy rainfalls in Germany. That’s exactly the problem.”
Bojanowski does say, however:
But it would not surprise me if soon there were data showing an increase in heavy rainfalls in Germany.”
Climate science is not like other sciences
Because Bojanowski writes about climate, geology and earth sciences, he is well aware that debate and challenge are the fuels that drive scientific progress. So it’s only natural for him to express his surprise at the reactions of scientists and journalists had to his critical articles. He summarizes:
It surprises me again and again how some react to critical articles on climate science. In medical journalism, critical, evidence-based journalism has established itself. I’m very curious to see how things will progress in climate science, foremost concerning the results.”
Indeed, especially over the coming 5 – 10 years.
44 responses to “Spiegel Science Editor: “Surprises Me Again And Again How Some React To Critical Articles On Climate Science””
Doesn’t surprise me. Some climate scientists are uncharacteristically Arrogant and even feel they should be in charge of organizing society.
It has been several days and several articles and no sign of sod. Why do I have the feeling he’s out enjoying the glorious weather that global warming brings?
With all that incoherent rambling, I’d say that detox may be a possibility.
If it is allowed to speculate for one hundred percent, we may also consider the possibility that sod is a creation by Pierre, giving his comment sections more contrast. One day you have to stop with that.
That is the problem generally; a class who think that they are superior and therefore should reorganise society.
Look no further than the mess with electricity generation where unqualified and inexperienced amateurs have tripled the price with little reduction in CO2 emissions, yet many still want to increase their efforts.
Bojanowski writes on his blog:
“Q: Ist die Kritik des Artikels nicht übertrieben?
A: Nein. Wenn Experten, zumal vom Bürger bezahlte Experten, unwidersprochen für die Öffentlichkeit relevante Ergebnisse öffentlich verdrehen, oder wesentliche Informationen verschweigen, muss man das irgendwo nachlesen können.”
I ***LIKE*** this! For a certain detail – I embolden it in my translation:
“Q: Ain’t your criticism exaggerated?
A: No. When experts – especially expersts PAYED BY THE CITIZEN – hide information or spin them, you should be able to read about this.”
Notice: He didn’t say “payed by the state” but “BY THE CITIZEN”! Of course the state pays nothing at all without first robbing the money from the citizen (yes Americans: The German state currently insists to rob everything that he needs from us and doesn’t borrow anything. That’s why German 10Y Bunds are deep in negative territory: They are so scarce). Most journalists in Germany see the state as the creator of all things and as the big sugardaddy. Bojanowski knows better.
Thanks – added!
Why should alarmist back their claims with data? They are true, independent of any data. They are above data.
You don’t suppose he’s referring to data tampering, do you?
No; He makes clear that IF new data WOULD show a statistically significant increase in heavy rains, say from 1950 to now, he would honestly report about it. Currently the data shows a rise by 8% over that timeframe, he writes on his blog, but given the big variance, this does not suffice to make a statistically significant trend.
“No; He makes clear that IF new data WOULD show a statistically significant increase in heavy rains, say from 1950 to now, he would honestly report about it. Currently the data shows a rise by 8% over that timeframe, he writes on his blog, but given the big variance, this does not suffice to make a statistically significant trend.”
The data does already contradict him, the very moment he starts looking at a more diverse set of indicators:
“Die Untersuchung von Starkniederschlagstagen mit unterschiedlichen
Wiederkehrzeiten zwischen 100 Tagen
und 100 Jahren mittels sehr unterschiedlicher Analysemethoden
(zeitlich gleitende klassische Extremwertstatistik;
direkte Trenduntersuchungen) ergibt ein weitgehend
einheitliches Bild der langzeitlichen Variabilität
von Starkniederschlagsereignissen in Deutschland im
20. Jahrhundert: eine generelle Zunahme von Starkniederschlägen
bei jedoch deutlich ausgeprägter regionaler
und jahreszeitlicher Differenzierung. Die stärksten Veränderungen
ergeben sich für den Nordwesten Deutschlands
und für den Norden Baden-Württembergs sowie
für das Winterhalbjahr.
Die Untersuchungen der Starkniederschlagstage
mit hunderttägiger Wiederkehrzeit zeigen außerdem,
dass weniger die Intensität der Niederschläge einzelner
Starkniederschlagstage zugenommen hat als vielmehr
die Anzahl der Starkniederschlagstage. Insgesamt ergibt
sich hieraus eine deutliche Steigerung des Anteils
von Starkniederschlägen am Gesamtniederschlagsauf”
But heaven prevent, Bojanowski might have to look at a scientific source for once in his life. It would basically stop his articles and the tricky headlines he loves to give them!
Yeah, nothing like this has happened before, and certainly not even worse than this…
…except that the preceding ones WERE all worse.
Rahmsdorf has ripped Bojanowski article apart.
He does so, basically with exactly the same arguments that i used:
sod 9. June 2016 at 10:36 PM
What Bojanowski is does is simple:
He uses a single metric (30+ mm rain days) over all of Germany and all seasons and then finds a trend, but no significant trend (no surprise, big rain days are few and pretty random). He adds an inflaming headline (bluff! he admits this part in his blog post!) and ignores all other evidence, including the simple and strong physical theory behind the increase.
Now in his blog post, he even admits that he will be proven wrong soon. Other metrics will show this and his own one will also turn significant. It is just a matter of time. So his article (especially the headline) turns out to be another trick!
As usual, sod is full of $#^&!!!
Never had floods in France like this before, …except when they did.
That flood is somewhat HIGHER than the recent one, despite the fact that there would now be considerably more urban hard area, hence more run-off.
But gees, I thought this one was meant to be “unprecedented”. 😉
Rahmsdorf couldn’t rip a wet paper bag apart. The fact that he can’t see that past floods were bigger despite all the modern extra urban run-off shows he has just as little understanding as little ….
But last year was hot and dry. They promised we would have more of that because that was the New Normal. They promised! Dammit!
The German Press.
Anybody else notice how appalled they were when Trump “instrumentalized” the shooting in Orlando, but that they were immediately certain that the right wing Brexit hate campaign was responsible for the murder of Jo Cox? And then they are miffed at the term Lügenpresse.
Bojanowski is one exemption. His education as geologist and his focus on natural sciences allows him to stay out of the propaganda circus.
He writes for SPIEGEL, owned indirectly by Bertelsmann, an oligarch-controlled foundation that propagandizes for EU, NWO and Globalisation. And of course heavily against Brexit. But; he’s a sideshow. Obviously they leave him alone.
“Bojanowski is one exemption. His education as geologist and his focus on natural sciences allows him to stay out of the propaganda circus.”
Sorry, but on this topic, he is simply wrong.
There is a clear trend in very hot days:
(page 19 ff, the source is linked in the blog post by Bojanowski)
If you really think, that we can see a huge increase in very hot days, without an increase in strong rain events, you are totally misguided.
Bojanowski is writing for Spiegel to appease the fossil fuel industry (important advertisement). He is also part of a transformation of the spiegel from the left to utterly centrist positions over a huge range of topics. While this might stabilise sales in the short term, it will destroy the magazin over time. I will abandone it, the very moment there is an alternative.
“He writes for SPIEGEL, owned indirectly by Bertelsmann, an oligarch-controlled foundation that propagandizes for EU, NWO and Globalisation. And of course heavily against Brexit.”
Bertelsman is centre (right) and massively pro business.
“If you really think, that we can see a huge increase in very hot days, without an increase in strong rain events, you are totally misguided.”
lol.. unfounded, baseless assertion.
“lol.. unfounded, baseless assertion.” – AndyG55
sod truly is a witless wonder, and so appropriately named, as well.
Bottom line, token skeptics in Leftist propaganda rags boost circulation?
It always surprises me how few journalists point out the obvious climate hype. They are supposed to be naturally skeptical after all – it’s their job!
It is also annoying that left-leaning people seem to pre-decide that it’s somehow a lefty issue; like minimum wages or taxing the rich, then immediately close their minds to science hype that they will happily recognize and point out in any other field. This is now the only branch of science that must remain immune from criticism in their eyes: Even obviously correct criticism. And why? Because it affects policy! The neo-luddite policy is leading the science!
Older socialists were not anti-industry, pro-green, pro-EU, or even politically correct. We seem to have undergone a rising tide of hypocritical, romanticist angst about modernity among the lefty pseudo-intellectuals and champagne socialists so mocked by Orwell and academia has never been so nakedly partisan.
Listen to Bojanowski saying, that more strong rains are very likely in the future:
look at this earlier article by Bojanowski:
It is funny, he is blaming weather services for not providing fast information, but denies the obvious trend. Strange.
Here the news report that started his attack on Rahmsdorf. But what Rahmsdorf says, is utterly reasonable!
Rahmstorf “utterly reasonable”??????? LOLOLOLOLOLOL
He, like sod, “has absolutely no idea what he is talking about.”
Sea levels are NOT rising.
REALLY! AND THEY CAN’T! IT’S IMPOSSIBLE!
Sod is either an idiot or a liar – or both.
How long will people here ignore the facts and accept these tricks?
“Das “heute journal” unterschlug Daten des Deutschen Wetterdienstes DWD, denen zufolge starke Niederschläge in Deutschland bislang konstant geblieben sind:”
We know that this claim is false. He simple removed the word “significant”, which he is using in later articles. But in those, he is inflating the headline.
The very moment we start looking at single stations, we get a lot of significant increases:
I have an offer to make to you folks: we go to Schwäbisch Gmünd together and you people explain to the people there, that there is no significant German wide trend in strong rain falls over all of Germany, according to a specific dataset of the DWD.
Hey, and you will also be allowed to show around that Paris picture that you seem to love so much!
Keep doubling down on stupid, sod. After all, it’s who you are.
It’s what makes you sooooo special.
I would NOT go to free beer night at the pub with you, sod.
I would not share his climate trough with him, either.
The slimo is obviously on the take in some fashion.
Be very aware of your constant support of a DYING agenda, sob.
You will have nowhere to run.
“I have an offer to make to you folks: we go to Schwäbisch Gmünd together and you people explain to the people there, that there is no significant German wide trend in strong rain falls over all of Germany, according to a specific dataset of the DWD.
Age old cultural marxist technique, instrumentalize any victim of anything as grievance group for your political agenda. You have no scruples because you grew up under cultural marxists who told you that the purpose of your life is destroying the culture that brought you up in a nice cosy environment. A self-destroyer.
Well 2 people died there. So sod, why don’t you use every deadly accident on the German Autobahn network to demand abolition of cars? Why don’t you use every victim of a Muslim murderer to demand the abolition of Islam? Why don’t you use every AIDS victim to demand the abolition of homosexuality? And so on. Come on, this is going to be fun. Instrumentalize victims, hey, there’s so much to do.
hey sod, three kids of syrian refugees drowned in a pond. Quick, demand the abolition of all ponds in Germany! They kill people from arid countries who can’t swim! And everyone knows, Global Warming causes ponds. Killer ponds. Waiting for unsuspecting victims!
sod. lectures us about what is significant and what is not, then uses a freak drowning accident in a flooded UNDERPASS to warn us of Global WArming.
That’s just Monty Python stuff.
Not a single argument to defend the Bojanowski nonsense? Not one?
Not interested in downloading a warmunist book.
“Not interested in downloading a warmunist book.”
you are not interested in data. Sad.
Lore was more interesting- he had emotions!
Peter Lorre? He’d have made a great leader of supporters of belief in human caused climate change. Wow. What a villain that would have been. Almost as evil as the ones they have now.
“They say my tree ring data is flawed. They impugn my integrity. They must pay!”
“you are not interested in data. Sad.” – sad little sod
No, we are just not interested in lies.
There is no “warning signal.” none whatever.
The fact that you promote that warmist excrement means you are either an eco-terrorist or one of their enablers, which is pretty much a distinction without much of a difference.
No, fact free nonsense may be fine for a fool like sod, but real skeptics aren’t content with explanations by apologists for ideological lunatic fantasy.
sod 20. June 2016 at 10:15 PM | Permalink | Reply
““Not interested in downloading a warmunist book.”
you are not interested in data. Sad.”
So sorry sod but I don’t click on a PDF with x chapters as I’m on a volume limited mobile plan. If you need to say something, say it instead of linking to x Megabytes drivel.