German Climatologist Werner Kirstein Unloads: “IPCC Is To Deceive People”…Calls Michael Mann’s Chart “A Fake”

German climate scientist Professor Werner Kirstein was interviewed by alternative media outlet NuoViso,  and since the video was released early this month on Youtube, it has been viewed over 130,000, times.

Politics commissioning reports for money

In the interview Professor Kirstein tells moderator Robert Stein that CO2 emissions have no effect on the climate and that “politicians commission climate scientists to produce expert reports for money.”

“Public is being deceived”

Prof. Kirstein talks about the “conscious deception” of the public and how all research projects and publications by “climate scientists” only have the goal of confirming “man-made climate change” and that different scientific views are not welcome.

According to Kirstein, the public is being deceived with the false information and that the aim of politics is to find a way to collect further taxes and to collect levies.

“We currently see this with the climate tax, which is to be introduced soon,” Kirstein says.

Movement back to feudalism

In the interview Kirstein also says that in Germany it gets down to ideologues pursuing an ideological transformation. He says: “I say this a bit exaggerated: We are to become a society of craftsmen and farmers like under feudal rule. Above are the feudals and below are the peasants who pay taxes. Industry is a detrimental thing that destroys the environment.”

Doomsday scenarios are “false”

The now retired professor calls the doomsday scenario in which the polar caps melt due to the CO2 greenhouse effect and floods and climate refugee flows occur worldwide, false.

“Even if all CO2 emissions in Germany were stopped, the effect would still be zero. We have no influence on climate change,” he says.

Mann’s hockey stick “a fake”, Gore “a profiteer”

Kirstein also sharply criticizes the IPCC and Prof. Michael E. Mann, telling Stein: “The purpose of the IPCC report is to deceive people,” and that Mann’s famous curve in the shape of a hockey stick chart and the graphics “are fake.”

Kirstein also blasted Al Gore, calling him a “profiteer” of the spreading global warming hysteria.

Warming has been natural, “All this is normal”

“In truth, it was very warm in the 12th century in the Middle Ages. And about 150 years ago a small ice age came to an end, both were suppressed in Michael Mann’s curve,” Kirstein said. He calls the rise in temperature after the Little Ice Age a natural “reheating”.

Kirstein also says the assumption that the glaciers have declined due to global warming is also wrong.

“Glaciers come and glaciers go. But that also varies from region to region,” the expert says. “That is why the ice would increase at the South Pole and some glaciers would melt at the North Pole. All this is normal.”

38 responses to “German Climatologist Werner Kirstein Unloads: “IPCC Is To Deceive People”…Calls Michael Mann’s Chart “A Fake””

  1. drumphish

    Banning fossil fuels is analogous to alcohol prohibition in the US at the beginning of the 20th century. Alcohol prohibition didn’t work and banning fossil fuels will have the same result. Don’t have to be a rocket surgeon to know what will eventually happen.

    Might as well ban water. har

    Some relevant information:

    “Where glaciers reach the sea, icebergs calve and float away, carrying within them clots of debris including large boulders. This debris drops to the seafloor when the ice melts and may accumulate in an environment where currents are weak and where thin-bedded or laminated deposits are being laid down. Ancient deposits of laminated shales with sporadic large stones, or clots of unsorted debris, may therefore be properly interpreted as the result of rafting. If these drop-stones in turn are large and angular and are composed of mixed rock types carried from great distances, and especially if some of them are glacially faceted and straited, we can infer that the rafts were thick icebergs from calving glaciers rather than thin sheets of shore ice or sea ice. Root mats and kelp holdfasts may also raft oversized stones and debris to environments of laminated deposition but are not so efficient as ice. In the Precambrian, however, plants did not yet exist, so ice rafting is confidently inferred.”

    Continental Glaciation through Geologic Times

  2. tom0mason

    Yes you darn rich Germans it’s about time you redistributed all that ill gotten wealth back to poor countries that are ‘endangered’ by your CO2 venting. Redistribute it via the UN of course, because they are so honest aren’t they?

    Here’s a short list (with links to sources) of some of the UN’s historically resent ‘honest’ successes …

    1. Yonason

      Excellent link, tomO!


  3. Kurt in Switzerland

    Good stuff. Probably the best informed journalist I have seen or heard who has interviewed a Climatologist.

    That said, I didn’t see any specific data or arguments which underlined the professor’s complete rejection of the greenhouse effect due to CO2, or of the enhanced greenhouse effect (ostensibly due to humankind’s “excessive” emissions of CO2).

  4. Ronald Clutz

    Pierre, it is a good thing that a respected climate professional celebrates his retirement by coming out against the climate cabal. It seems that mid-career such independence of thought is too expensive for the individual to bear. Let us hope that more are willing to stand up and speak out.

    Meanwhile, there is the collapse of the scientific case for CO2 sensitivity, which most people do not grasp because of the technicalities. I tried to put it in plain language recently in a post:
    Global Warming Theory and the Tests it Fails

  5. David Appell

    Werner Kirstein is a Professor of Geography at the University of Leipzig, specializing in climate history, not a “climate scientist.”

    I wonder if he thinks CO2 doesn’t absorb any IR, or if the Earth doesn’t emit any.

    I wonder what he thinks about Exxon scientists coming to the same conclusions as the IPCC in the late 1970s.

    1. Yonason

      Ahh, yes, the old “he’s not a climate scientist” canard. As if climate isn’t something geologists have to know about to be good at what they do.

      Taking D.A. seriously isn’t something he makes difficult to avoid.

      1. tom0mason

        From DA, a specialist in modeling computer virtual reality. Never goes close to reality just pontificates about what a computer says.

    2. Nathane E

      You seem to wonder a lot.

    3. Josh

      ‘Werner Kirstein is a Professor of Geography at the University of Leipzig, specializing in climate history, not a “climate scientist.”’

      The study of our climate encompasses many different disciplines and is anything but straightforward. Education and knowledge go far beyond qualifications. It’s more important to consider the validity of the arguments than that persons background (although it might be instructive to know that the people who fund climate panic groups are the same people who fund wars and orchestrate colour revolutions). There are many people around the globe who are amply qualified and have reached similar conclusions to Mr Kirstein.

      ‘I wonder if he thinks CO2 doesn’t absorb any IR, or if the Earth doesn’t emit any.’

      I doubt he’d actually think this. What he and many others contend is that the effects of this on the climate are massively overstated and that there is no need for the irrational panic.

      1. David Appell

        “What he and many others contend is that the effects of this on the climate are massively overstated and that there is no need for the irrational panic.”

        So what does his calculation give for ECS?

        1. Yonason

          Get help, David. You need it.

          Everything you know (about global warming) is wrong.

        2. Kurt in Switzerland

          So David,

          What’s your calculation/guesstimate for ECS?

    4. jim

      David Appell—“I wonder if he thinks CO2 doesn’t absorb any IR, or if the Earth doesn’t emit any.”
      He probably just looked at a bit of history:
      * Minoan, Roman & Medieval warm periods were warmer than now without man’s CO2.
      * Glaciers retreated faster in the 1930s without man’s CO2.
      * Man only emits 6% of the annual CO2 – the rest if from natural sources
      * CO2 only causes 9-26% of the greenhouse effect
      * The recent rate of warming is not unusual.
      * CO2 FOLLOWS NOT LEADS temperature in most data.
      * There is NO DATA to show that hurricanes, storms, floods or droughts are increasing.
      * Sea levels are NOT rising faster than before man’s CO2
      * Today’s thermometer readings are NOT warmer than the 1930s – NOAA has been “adjusting” the data.
      * Plus there is increasing evidence that the sun is driving climate.
      ****In view of these facts, there is NO LOGICAL REASON to believe that man’s CO2 is affecting climate.

      While some may argue with the above, here is some undeniable evidence:
      Medieval warm period was when Vikings farmed land that is now permafrost and buried their dead under it.
      Roman warm period was when Hannibal crossed the Alps with elephants

    5. jim

      Here is one account of David Appell’s antics

      1. Yonason

        Hi, jim.

        I couldn’t find anything about him there, and only one post that contained one brief ref to him.

        Here are a couple of good ones that go into a lot more detail.

        And from Lubos Motl…

        Just one more, this on the wit and wisdom of D.o.A.
        “PS: Anyway Trump is far too busy selling America’s soul to Russia”


        D.o,A.’s climate predictions are just as worthless.

        He heeds help. I hope he gets it.

        1. David Appell

          I don’t make climate predictions, which you’d know if you had read carefully.

          But there is this:

          “Successful predictions of climate science,” Ray Pierrehumbert, 2012

          Make sure you don’t watch it.

          1. Yonason

            “I don’t make climate predictions,…”

            Good thing, David, since you can’t even get what’s happening now right.

            Are you still going to insist that Trump is “selling America’s soul to Russia?” He didn’t collude with Russia, but Hillary DID!


            And she made a killing off of it, too.

            It was so obvious that any sane person knew then that it was a lie that Trump was on Russia’s side, and you got it TOTALLY wrong. How can I believe you about anything when you are such a blatant activist?

            “Make sure you don’t watch it [what some delusional hack thinks warmists got right].”

            No worries. I can tell you what they got right. NOTHING. I have better things to do than waste my time watching propaganda.

            I refer you again to what Lubos Motl wrote about you, as he banned you from future posts on his blog.

          2. Yonason

            A little something on Warmist activists’ “predictions.”

            They are not scientists. They are lunatics.

          3. Yonason

            More failed warmist predictions…

            When your heroes get everything wrong, it may be time to look for new ones.

    6. richard

      and all the world leaders etc are now listening to an uneducated 16 year old.

      Ain’t climate science great.

      BTW , Mr Appell, have you sent any money to fraudster , Michael Mann, to help pay his court costs.

    7. John Brown

      You wonder too much.

      Knowledge is bliss.

      Begone wonder-troll!

  6. Sam Pyeatte

    You can only use logic to see that CO2 does not cause a climate problem. Without plenty of CO2 we do not have photosynthesis. There is also the problem of “testing” the theory of AGW. Due to the massive complexities of global climate dynamics, we can never provide a controlled experiment.

    1. David Appell

      Sam: there are also no controlled experiments in astronomy, geology, and most medical sciences. Yet we know a great deal of those subjects. It’s the same with climate science.

    2. Crispin in Waterloo

      David A

      Why would any scientist not believe CO2 or the Earth emit IR? What do you believe?

      Both emit IR. It is the primary mechanism for cooling the atmosphere into space. The air is heated by the hot surface (convective heat transfer) and IR absorption. If GHG’s were not present the radiative heating would drop to zero and the surface heating of the air would more than double with the radiative cooling capacity shrinking to zero. Only convective heat transfer could lost heat back to the surface at night.

      In that condition, (no GHG) would the air temperature rise or fall? What do you think? Please explain what happens to the heat gained by the GHG-free air.

      If the GHG concentration rises, does it add additional cooling power to the air because it radiates more efficiently, or additional heating power? Do they balance or is there a net change?

  7. bonbon

    A bit late, considering the deliberations on CO2 tax in Berlin right now.

    It’s the old wallet syndrome – it only hurts me personally when someone pinches the nice Euro’s in my portmonaie. I’ll do nothing until then, when it’s too late.
    Also well known as the Gartenzaun effect…. (garden fence effect).

  8. Georg Thomas

    As for no controlled experiments in science: it is not unusual that science deals with unrepeatable events, but this does not mean that in doing so the scientific method is being shunned.

    Astrology, for instance, is an application of the science of physics (chemistry etc.), and its methods.

    In dealing with unrepeatable events, science does not work on the basis of the idea that science is or ever can be settled nor do scientists call critics deniers (refusing to discuss their propositions) but understand that “denial” (criticism) is indispensable part of the scientific effort.

    Unrepeatable events do not rule out empirical assessment of the scientific kind. Our climate is in many ways unrepeatable, yet is may well be subjected to empirical analysis, which appears to show that there is no foundation to the claim of catastrophic anthropogenic warming.

    1. Georg Thomas

      Correction: Of course, I meant to write “astronomy”.

      1. tom0mason

        Thank-you Georg Thomas, I assumed that was what you meant, still it made me chuckle 🙂

  9. Georg Thomas

    (1) Kirstein is introduced by the interviewer as “Physiker und Klimatologe” (“physicist and climatologist”), which description Kirstein acknowledges with a nod. Later he describes himself as “Klimatologe” (“climatologist”), a term that he uses in contradistinction to “Klimawissenschaftler” (“climate scientist”), whom he characterises as failing to adhere to the principles of science and indeed being fraudulent.

    At any rate, formal association and qualifications are of subordinate significance, at best, as I shall argue below – they do not ensure privileged capacity for improving science.

    (2) Abusers of science typically emphasise authority as the source and arbiter of science. In truth, this role is played by those who engage in rigorous testing, constantly calling into question the scientific status quo.

    In this sense, science is by its nature about as anti-authoritarian/iconoclastic as it gets. Science disrupts science, subverting the latest conceit of ultimate authority.

    I think, Planck said: science advances one funeral at a time; authority is always in the way of the next improvement in science.

    (3) It is preposterous to argue that a physicist is incapable of correcting/improving on the mathematics of mathematicians by virtue of being a physicist and not a mathematician, and vice versa. What matters is not formal association but the correct and rigorous application of the scientific method.

    What counts in terms of scientific progress is not a person’s CV and standing but the quality of his argument.

    (4) A person who rigorously applies the game of conjectures and refutations that underlies science is capable of advancing our knowledge of climate or other subjects, irrespective of his formal academic qualifications. In fact, being an outsider to the preponderant academic sub-culture and a strict adherent to sound scientific practices, makes it likely that she will advance the subject more than the “insiders” — simply by being able to uncover the un-/anti-scientific self-serving bias that subject’s incumbents indulge in.

    In particular, she will be able to detect error and fraud, which deserves heightened attention in a science that is still in its early stages of development, for a young science such as climatology/climate science is particularly prone to attract charlatans and fraudsters, such as those who claim that in questions pertaining to climate “the science is settled”.

    The claim itself is a glaring sign of incompetence, of not understanding what science is all about.

    1. tom0mason

      Very elegantly and eloquently put, I may be borrowing parts of this for use elsewhere.

      1. Georg Thomas

        tomOason, feel free to do so. I appreciate your contributions, too.

  10. Yonason

    @Georg Thomas

    “…being an outsider to the preponderant academic sub-culture and a strict adherent to sound scientific practices, makes it likely that she will advance the subject more than the ‘insiders’…”

    In an engineering class I took all too long ago, the professor told us about a (German or Austrian?) Housfrau (sorry I can’t remember her name) who wrote mathematical (apparently self-taught) treatises on soap films, which she studied while doing dishes. She got them published in legitimate journals, and achieved academic recognition for her contributions. But then, that was engineering, and they are less likely to be dismissive of new material than “experts” in other fields.

    1. Georg Thomas

      Yonason, I wouldn’t be surprised if Galilei, Newton, Einstein, Bohr and other scientists associated with great advances in physics were – at least at the time of their breakthrough – in a similar position to the German or Austrian Hausfrau that you mentioned: dedicated to sound science and independent of the prevalent academic establishment.

      Economics, a discipline that I have been evolved in all my adult life, is an extreme case of academic establishment-bias. With hindsight, my estimate is that about 2% of the time that both students being initiated into the subject as well as advanced scholars/practitioners occupy themselves with economics is used to question and try to truly understand the basics, while 98% of the time is taken up by showing off that one is a “scientific” economist, supposedly some kind of higher being.

  11. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #377 | Watts Up With That?
  12. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #377 - Scienceexist
  13. Weekly Abstract of Local weather and Power # 377 – Next Gadget

    […] German Climatologist Werner Kirstein Unloads: “IPCC Is To Deceive People”…Calls Mi… […]

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