Skeptic German Geologist Interview Goes Viral: Greta Demos “Emotional, Not Based On Fact”…”Selective Media”

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

German climate skepticism may have awakened, and ironically it may in large part be an unintended consequence of the “Greta demonstrations”. Germans may be finally getting fed up with the hysteria that has emptied out schools and turned into an ambush on their industrial jobs.

German geologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning, who together with Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt runs German climate skeptic site Die kalte Sonne, was recently interviewed by the conservative Junge Freiheit TV in Berlin (In German).

While the mainstream media focus almost exclusively on the ultra-alarmist climate scenarios, Lüning takes a far more moderate, non-alarmist view of climate and  man’s impact on it.

In Lüning’s view, natural factors play an as big, or even bigger. role on climate than humans do.

Recent warming “not unusual”

In the interview, Lüning explains how the assumptions made by the CO2 alarmists fall apart when tested against the observations of the past. The experienced German geologist explains why the modern 20th century warming is nothing unusual and that the same has already occurred numerous times over the past 10,000 years.

Start of industrialization coincided with end of Little Ice Age

One problem, Lüning says, is that scientists like to begin their temperature charts right before industrialization began in earnest, which happens to coincide near the temperature low point of the Holocene. He says that the term “pre-industrial” has been the source of “lots of confusion”.

Medieval and Roman times were warmer. Image: Die kalte Sonne

Natural factors at work

Lüning reminds listeners that the question concerning how much of the recent warming can be attributed to man is still being hotly debated, and that we know that natural factors have always been in the driver’s seat in the past. Personally Lüning believes that the real figure is closer to 50-50, with a likelihood that natural factors are a bit more than half.

He thinks the CO2-based climate models so far have been unable to explain the climate variability of the past, but that those based on natural factors and the past changes are far better.

97% consensus claim very misleading

On the claims that there is a 97% consensus among climate scientists that man is now driving the climate, the geologist – who is also co-author  of the book: The Neglected Sun – says that claim is totally misleading:

The study is often cited, but unfortunately misunderstood. If you look closely at the study, then you quickly see that it has to do with a completely different question. That Co2 drives warming, most people – even the large majority skeptics – concede CO2 warms, but it gets down to the question of how much. […] All those who think it’s just a little bit get also lumped into the 97%. I’m in the 97%. Donald Trump is a part of the 97%, as he recently said that it is possible that CO2 warms.”

Preindustrial global temperature much worse

Next Junge Freiheit (JF TV)  asks if a one-degree temperature rise would be so bad. “Is today’s temperature worse than the level of 1850?”

Lüning replies, reminding us that 1850 was the Little Ice Age and how it was “really a difficult time”. Lüning added:

We had crop failures. We had cold. We had disease. We really should appreciate that we no longer live in the Little Ice Age because that one degree of warming was urgently needed. No one would want to go back to this cold period.”

Concerning another 1°C of warming ahead, he says that it would not be only bad news. “There would be winners and there would be losers.” He points out that especially Canada and Siberia would profit.

Emotionalized – kids should return to school, learn fundamentals

Lüning is also critical of the “Greta demonstrations” which he says “have moved the discussion from a factual one to one that is emotional”. He adds: “It’s good that the youth are getting involved, but they should return to school and learn physics, chemistry and geography and all the fundamentals of climate science.”

Strongly filtered press

Lüning also sharply criticizes the press, saying the issue has been “strongly filtered”:

Everything that is negative gets sold as headlines. And things like it’s been cooling for the last 3 years naturally get no headlines. What gets reported is very selective.”

Lüning calls the media “filtering” a fundamental problem that should not be happening in the 21st century.

Published literature far more balanced than media

When asked if the the published science is as imbalanced as the media, Lüning responds: “Not at all.” He says a new (non-alarming study) comes out almost daily, but the media refuse to report on it and instead they “prefer to report on alarmist ones, particularly from an institute located close to Berlin.”

Catastrophe very unlikely

Finally, when asked if we need to worry about the planet going under, as many projections range from manageable to catastrophic conditions ahead:

I see very many indications showing that it’s going be at the lower end of the range, towards manageable. That doesn’t mean we don’t need to do anything. But we don’t need to be preparing for the worst case scenario.”

In Lüning’s view, the path is very long and it should be taken one step at a time. He also tells JF-TV that climate science is still poorly understood and that more research needs to be done. He sees no need to hysterically put the entire economic system in question.

Viral: Nearing 50,000 views in just 2 days

On a positive note, since the JF-TV interview was released on Youtube just 2 days ago, it has been viewed already almost 50,000 times. For a German climate skeptic video, this is nothing short of phenomenal!

Perhaps in Germany it’s one thing to protest climate change, but maybe people are now getting fed up with kids not going to school and instead irrationally turning the discussion into a hysteria.

I asked Dr. Lüning what he thought about the video getting so many views. His reply by email:

People want to see a more balanced climate discussion, involving all views, not just the most extreme alarm scenarios.”

Germans are also starting to get fed up with the onslaught on their industry and jobs.

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

17 responses to “Skeptic German Geologist Interview Goes Viral: Greta Demos “Emotional, Not Based On Fact”…”Selective Media””

  1. Kurt in Switzerland

    Hi Pierre,

    Lüning is being far too kind. Perhaps by stating an opinion that the man-made component [of warming since 1950] is roughly 50%, he isn’t rejected outright as a “climate denier” and thus is viewed by more people who are sitting on the fence.

    Perhaps this is tactically shrewd. But the onus should be on those with the theory (that human GHG emissions are now driving the ‘global climate’) to demonstrate that the ‘null hypothesis’ is invalid, which in this case would be that ‘natural factors’ weren’t in fact responsible for the recent warming.

    This would be very difficult to prove, of course (if not impossible). But the IPCC’s repeated proclamations that this is the case does not make it so!

    1. SebastianH

      You can’t prove a negative, Kurt. If you think the warming comes from natural factors and has nothing to do with GHGs increasing, show us how that would work! The skeptics arguments on this topic are well known and have not been able to demonstrate to us normal people how AGW could be hoax like you guys claim it is. What is the bill hypothesis of that claim?

      1. Kenneth Richard

        If you think the warming comes from natural factors and has nothing to do with GHGs increasing, show us how that would work!

        The net greenhouse effect influence result of +42 ppm CO2 during 1992-2014 was a flat/slightly negative overall GHE forcing (-0.04 W m-2/yr) according to Song et al., 2016. In contrast, the net result of the solar-modulated reduction in cloud cover (i.e., natural SW cloud radiative forcing) encompassing this period (1984-2000) was +6.8 W m-2, or +4.25 W m-2 per decade. Even if we accept the Feldman et al. (2015) claim that +22 ppm CO2 causes a positive forcing of just +0.2 W m-2/decade, that value is completely overwhelmed by the 21-times-greater natural forcing value.

        You can’t prove a negative, Kurt.

        Then prove whatever it is you can, SebastianH. Warming was 100% natural prior to human intervention. Now you believe it’s 100% caused by humans. Prove it.

  2. mpcraig

    I just read something that me me think. How can a large group of people have 97% agreement on anything?. They would have to be VERY like-minded to begin with. Anyways, a curious question.

    1. Yonason

      “A consensus means that everyone agrees to say collectively
      what no one believes individually.”
      – Abba Eban

  3. Wiliam Haas

    The reality is that, based on the paleoclimate record and the work done with models. one can conclude that the climate change we are experiencing today is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control Despite the hype, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and there is plenty of scientific rational to support the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. Climate change is so slow that it takes networks of sophisticated sensors, decades to even detect it. We must be careful not to mix up weather cycles with true climate change.

    The AGW conjecture is based on only partial science and is full of holes. For example, AGW depends upon the existaince of a radiant greenhouse effect provided for my trace gases in the Earth’s atmosphere with LWIR absorption bands. Such a radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed in a real greenhouse, in the Earth’s atmosphere or anywhere else in the solar system. The radiant greenhouse effect is science fiction so hence the AGW conjecture is science fiction as well. There may be good reasons to be conserving on the use of fossil fuels but climate change is not one of them.

    1. SebastianH

      William, nothing you wrote in your first paragraph is even remotely true. I wonder what let you to believe it would be, I really do.

      The second paragraph basically brings the first impression home. You are arguing like someone completely ignorant of science (basic physics) and top it off by actually mentioning a real greenhouse 🙂

      Sorry, there are moderate skeptics with which one can probably discuss this and they might eventually agree that the science is real, but then there are those that turn in up to eleven and are just too far gone. Maybe go to a in nearby and let them explain the physics of greenhouse gases to you. Might open your eyes, at the least you’ll finally know what you are arguing against 🙂

      1. SebastianH

        Damn smartphone. I meant go to a nearby University. And: turn it up to eleven …

    2. tom0mason

      Wiliam Haas,
      “… one can conclude that the climate change we are experiencing today is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control Despite the hype, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and there is plenty of scientific rational to support the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. “

      And that truism can not be said often enough.

      As these 92 research papers show the SOLAR effect is what drives our climate not some insignificant atmospheric gas (CO2) see https://notrickszone.com/2018/12/27/92-new-papers-link-solar-forcing-to-climate-some-predict-a-solar-induced-global-cooling-by-2030/

      Only the ignorant, and the ignorant but mendacious alarmists, would say it’s not the sun that has the major influence on our climate. The atmosphere and the oceans redistribute this solar energy. This much is very settled science.
      Any effects from CO2 are lost in the noise of current NATURAL climate variations.

  4. John F. Hultquist

    mpcraig,

    Regarding global warming, or whatever, there is not now, nor was there ever 97% agreement. This is a totally bogus number.
    It starts with the United Nations statement:
    . . . for the purpose of assessing “the scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change.”

    In other words, the “large group of people” declared the issue and went from there. It really has nothing to do with global warming or climate, but does hope to promote One World Government.

    See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agenda_21

    Don’t miss Agenda 2030 on that site.

  5. Phil Salmon

    It would be great if a version of this interview with English subtitles could be made.

  6. Skeptic German Geologist Interview Goes Viral: Greta Demos "Emotional, Not Based On Fact"…"Selective Media" | Un hobby...

    […] P. Gosselin, April 12, 2019 in […]

  7. sasquatch

    If Germans in Germany were serious about the carbon conundrum, they would all stop drinking beer immediately.

    It will be a cold day in hell when that happens. A beer fast in Germany will be like a cod fast in Iceland.

    Close every brewery in Germany, just too much carbon dioxide dissolved in solution, wind farms have to be in Germany all because those crazed beer drinking Germans need them to reduce carbon emissions that the breweries are causing.

    Germans need to outlaw barley, hops, yeast, water, even air and fertile soil. Beer needs air and fertile soil to become bier. Das ist Verboten.

    Reduce the number of wind turbines to zero, increase the number of breweries by ten fold.

    You’ll be happy as a clam, just a better world.

  8. Weekly Local weather and Power Information Roundup #356 – Daily News
  9. Gary Pearse

    Sasquatch, I wish they taught the simple accounting method known as ‘mass balance’ in processes to a wider range of students. It is understandable to the layman outside of science and engineering (actually, surprisingly even many climate scientists appear to be unaware of it). It would reduce the verbiage in debate by perhaps 50%. For example, to make beer, you have to grow barley and hops,which take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. When you brew the beer, it simply re-emits the CO2. Meanwhile, the following crops re-take the CO2 emitted in brewing and grow anew. Beermaking is wonderfully ‘sustainable’. We can drink it without guilt! Climate boffins who want us to stop eating beef because of their gaseous emissions are exactly analogous. While the cow is chewing up the grass, the clipped grass left, immediately begins to take up more CO2 and grow again. Cows are vegans that operate in a grand sustainable way.

  10. J.Martens

    RE: Greta
    If interested in Al Gore’s “We Don’t Have Time” Listen:
    https://www.globalresearch.ca/saving-the-earth-or-saving-capitalism-the-inconvenient-truth-behind-todays-youth-climate-campaigns/5667343

    An interview of Cory Morningstar

  11. Now Even Germans Are Becoming Climate Skeptics

    […] Read more at No Tricks Zone […]

Leave a Reply

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

Close