Leading Meteorologist Slams Climate Alarmists As “Desperate and Scientifically Wrong”…PIK “Doomsday Prophets”

High-profile Swiss meteorologist Jörg Kachelmann has penned a stinging commentary in the online Bayerischer Kurier concerning all the climate doomsday hysteria sweeping across Europe, and warns history tells us such hysteria has never turned out well.

Swiss meteorologist Jörg Kachelmann. Photo: Weather.Us

PIK’s “silly” science, doomsday prophets

The veteran meteorologist, who is convinced the planet is indeed warming due to man’s activities, worries that environmental groups have been getting away with falsehoods and how the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) is promoting “silly” science and “view themselves as the prophets of the imminent end of the world.”

One problem with all the über-alarmism, Kachelmann sees, is a tendency of people simply resigning because they’ve come to believe that nothing can be done to stop the coming doomsday, and so why bother trying.

He also sharply criticizes green activists who blame every extreme weather event on man-made climate change, writing that it is “desperate and scientifically completely wrong”.

Future scenarios as the present – bigger media bang!

One reason the activists have become so shrill, Kachelmann believes, is due in large part to the media’s willingness to run with every sensational story without an inkling of background checking.

“Since votes are to be won now, scientifically quite justifiable predictions for the future are quickly changed into the present, because there’s a bigger bang. The charlatans are certain that this mischief will spread through the media at a time when most German states have largely abolished science education.”

“Whoring for clicks”…”bullshit sells”

“The collective disinformation unscientists meet up with a sad media situation, where the successful whoring for clicks is more important than even the smallest quantities of respectability. Stupid clicks well, says Kachelmann. “But that doesn’t matter to “Focus”, “Merkur” or the “Süddeutsche” [publications]. It still gets written because bullshit sells.”

Woodstoves, not cars, are worst polluters

Another hot issue in Germany is fine particle pollution. Here Kachelmann also sees policymakers stampeding down the wrong solution path, and are falsely putting most of the blame on automobiles: “The exceedance of fine particles and other pollutants is almost exclusively due not to traffic, but to wood-burning stoves, which have recently multiplied in densely populated areas, because insane people claim that they are “ecological.”

Over the recent years the German government has been turning a blind eye to dirty wood-burning stoves – even supporting their use. Now towns and villages across Germany are filled with choking smoke from the supposedly climate-friendly burning of wood.

16 responses to “Leading Meteorologist Slams Climate Alarmists As “Desperate and Scientifically Wrong”…PIK “Doomsday Prophets””

  1. bonbon

    Not wood “stoves”, but wood-chip furnaces as heating for schools, public buildings, and Uni’s wanting to look “green”.
    Well ask the locals outside the preening towns – their traditional wood supply is being swiped, and the Forestry people are only too happy to sell chips.

    Another look at the preening sububia – green housing pushed with only green electric heating, by law, with, for now, subsidies, no oil burners allowed. And there the electricity price the worlds highest!

    And after turning nuclear off, brown coal is desperately needed, which makes wood look retro.

    The unbelievable hysteria moves now to Brussels, and the EIB will be greened – no fossil investment whatsoever.

    So it is even worse than 1923 hyperinflation – the proposed green digital currency tsunami would not even heat a cup of coffee!

  2. Sean

    Well, since it took nearly 10 years to figure out that diesel cars without urea injection were increasing NOx emissions in cities, they’ll sort out the relation between wood stoves and real pollution before the end of the next decade.

    1. Yonason

      “…it took nearly 10 years to figure out that diesel cars without urea injection were increasing NOx emissions in cities” – Sean

      That problem already had a potential solution. “…use of urea in the reduction of NOx from the flue gas streams of power plants is a well-established method…”
      What was needed was a method of applying it to cars.

      “…they’ll sort out the relation between wood stoves and real pollution before the end of the next decade.” – Sean

      Not likely, unless they already have some idea how to do that, like maybe switching to nuclear. But, since they reject out of hand, unless they know of some existing technology that just requires tweaking, “real pollution” will remain a problem.

      The diesel solution as applied to Beemers (from 2008).

      1. Yonason

        OK< the article is mostly about Mercedes, but they mention BMW and a few others as well.

        1. Sean

          The companies that had sophisticated urea injection systems did indeed clean up the NOx from the exhaust but higher volume manufactures like VW got past the dynomometer emission testing with software that ran the engines differently when the car detected the dyno testing. They had great fuel economy and performance but high NOx output in regular driving. It took years to discover the slight of hand, even though urban NOx levels were on the rise.

          1. Yonason

            OK, but my point was that in the case of NOx we already knew how, in principle, to reduce those emissions – but if we don’t yet know how to reduce toxic emissions from burning wood, you can’t just assume that a solution will present itself.

            NOTE – John F. Hultquist seems to have shed the necessary light on the latter.

  3. John F. Hultquist

    Woodstoves, not cars, are worst polluters

    We live where winters are cold, sometimes going to -26°C [-15°F].
    The house is all electric with an air-source heat pump.
    Our emergency back-up for heating (cooking too, if desired)
    is a modern wood stove with a catalytic combustor (aka converter) that burns the unburned fuel (smoke) from the fire before it exits through the flue. These are not inexpensive.

    Such stoves are much improved compared to older stoves and open fireplaces.

    [ Another thing we do is have several small solar lights, often called walkway or patio lights – – about 2 US $ each – – that stay charged and are in the house, if needed ]

  4. Gerald the Mole

    I wonder how many of the climate reporters employed by the MSM have the technical ability to ask searching questions when so-called experts make statements of doom?

    1. Adam Gallon

      None of them. They just repeat verbatim what’s in the press release.

  5. J. Seifert

    The global temperature peak, with WMO values, was in 2016 with 14.83 C, going down to 2017 with 14.76 C and further declining to 2018 with 14.68 C and still colder in 2019…… Alarmism is 3 years too late, the temperature downturn has already arrived. Someone should point this out to Kachelmann.

  6. Denis Ables

    It’s not difficult to show that CO2, although steadily increasing, has little to do with our current warming. It’s also easy to show that the Medieval Warming Period (1.000 years-ago) was global and at least as warm as it is now, and this can be demonstrated without controversial models or dubious statistical machinations. Alarmists, rather than recognizing the value of historical data (specifically, earlier global warming information), have for unexplained reasons based their computer projections on a cherry-picked short-term correlation between increasing CO2 and increasing temperature from 1975 to the 2000s. (That warming period is bracketed by conflicting data, namely a global cooling between 1945 and 1975 as CO2 was steadily increasing, and by the IPCC acknowledgement that there was a temperature “hiatus” in the 2000s while CO2 continued to increase.)

    The only other indication favoring CO2 as causing warming is related to experiments showing that when CO2 is added to a closed container, the container temperature supposedly increases somewhat. However, the open atmosphere is hardly a closed container. Satellites detect heat escaping to space and closed containers do not experience planetary-level feedbacks.

    The proponents of anthropogenic-caused global warming invariably DENY that the Medieval Warming Period was global and likely warmer than it is now. The alarmists acknowledge only that Europe experienced the MWP. (They had no choice – climate in that region during the MWP is too well documented!) Alarmists apparently take this unjustifiable position because their computer models cannot explain any of these earlier global warmings. Their computer models depend heavily on increasing CO2 level, even more so on yet another ASSUMPTION – that water vapor feedback is the actual culprit, causing 2 to 3 times the temperature increase supposedly brought on by the increase in CO2. They also apparently ignore the fact that the supposed heating influence of CO2 diminishes very quickly as CO2 level increases and CO2 has already doubled 8 times.

    The global temperature increase during the MWP, as well as during the earlier global warmings, was not related to CO2 because there was no increase in CO2 during those periods. The problem for alarmists is that it becomes obvious that perhaps our current warming (such as it is) may also be due to NATURAL climate variation. That, of course, conflicts with Mann’s hockey stick graph. Mann recently lost a Canadian suit he brought against Dr. Tim Ball years ago. Ball had apparently implied that some of Mann’s work was fraudulent. Mann succeeded in delaying dismissal of that suit by agreeing to provide his “work”, on or before the revised termination date, but apparently did not supply his data by the extended date. Man has been ordered to pay Ball’s $700k in legal expenses. (How does this suit differ from a legal harassment suit?) Mann claims some of his work is proprietary but there are a few others who claim to have matched Mann’s hockey stick. Presumably their “work” is available, so what’s proprietary about Mann’s work? Why should anyone believe a supposed scientist’s work if the basis for his conclusions are not provided, especially when the results are so controversial? The top IPCC paleoclimatologist agrees that Mann’s hockey stick papers are wrong!


    Without bothering to argue further about the dubious (and controversial) process employed by Mann to generate his hockey stick graph it is completely debunked by actual data which demonstrates that the MWP was indeed global and at least as warm as now. While that proves nothing directly about the cause of our current warming (such as it is) it speaks loudly about the credibility of the folks who continue to DENY that the MWP was global and at least as warm as now. The link below provides, among other things, an MWP global study. It also rebuts the various alarmist defensive “talking points”.


    The question remains. Why in the world did the alarmists choose CO2 as the culprit when there is no evidence that CO2, a trace gas, has ever, even over geologic periods when CO2 was 10 to 20 times higher, had any impact on our planet’s temperature? There was obviously some uncertainty, including immediate strong skepticism voiced by credible researchers about Mann’s process. Mann’s claims were also at odds with various existing peer-reviewed studies. Phil Jones, one of the prominent alarmist early players, publicly stated that if the MWP was global and as warm as now, then that was a “different ballgame”. Nonetheless, alarmists decided to deny (or ignore) earlier data and instead opt to blame human activity. That position pretty much necessitates alarmist denial that the MWP was global and at least as warm as now.

    It’s obvious now, if not then, that a more thorough investigation of the earlier global warmings was necessary, particularly the MWP, before resorting to speculation about CO2.

    Some time ago Henrik Svensmark, a Danish physicist and his associates, offered a theory which makes use of the historical data. Svensmark’s theory proposes that sun activity modulates the level of a relatively steady stream of cosmic rays intent on penetrating the lower atmosphere. (CERN certified some time ago that cosmic rays may influence the level of cloud cover.) Until very recently we have, for some time, been experiencing a high level of sun activity. During such an active period the level of cloud coverage drops because fewer cosmic rays penetrate the solar wind in the lower atmosphere. With less cloud cover more sun energy reaches the earth surface so it becomes warmer. However, a very low level of sun activity appears to now be underway. If the sun remains inactive for a significant period Svensmark’s theory predicts more cloud cover, hence more sun energy deflected back to space and therefore a cooler earth. CO2 plays no role in Svensmark’s theory.

    Whether or not Svensmark’s theory holds up, it is apparent that historical data deserves serious attention. If earlier global warmings cannot be explained why should anyone believe speculation about future climate? Since CO2 increase was the only possible link between human activity and global warming, it appears that human activity (apart from its impact on Urban Heat Islands) plays no part in global warming. The issue about increasing CO2 should be left to such disciplines as botanists and health researchers rather than climatologists.





    1. David Appell

      Denis Ables wrote:
      “It’s not difficult to show that CO2, although steadily increasing, has little to do with our current warming.”

      Really? Every climate scientist in the world knows that CO2 influences climate.

      So who’s more likely to be wrong — you, or all of them?


      1. Yonason

        OK People. Magic Time!

        “Every climate scientist in the world knows that CO2 influences climate.” – David the deceitful climate fairy

        David left out the word “little,” as in “little to do with” and “little influence.”

        Doubling CO2 involves a 2% perturbation to [the planetary energy] budget. So do minor changes in clouds and other features, and such changes are common. In this complex multifactor system, what is the likelihood of the climate (which, itself, consists in many variables and not just globally averaged temperature anomaly) is controlled by this 2% perturbation in a single variable? Believing this is pretty close to believing in magic. Instead, you are told that it is believing in ‘science.’ Such a claim should be a tip-off that something is amiss. After all, science is a mode of inquiry rather than a belief structure.” – Dr. Richard Lindzen

        Perhaps if David were more honest he’d admit that, while most scientists think CO2 has some minor effect, they (>31,000 of them!) do NOT agree that elevated atmospheric CO2 will be catastrophic.

        See also here.

        Poor delusional David is a propagandist. How can you tell? Note how he never supports his assertions with any legitimate documentation.

        I really feel sorry for you, David, the way you embarrass yourself by making ridiculous and misleading assertions. It pains me to have to correct you publically. But it has to be done because otherwise some might think you know what you are talking about, when that is clearly not the case.

    2. David Appell

      >> It’s also easy to show that the Medieval Warming
      >> Period (1.000 years-ago) was global

      So do so.
      Get it published and you’ll be world famous.

      1. Yonason

        Paraphrasing David Appell

        “Reinvent the wheel, and become famous.”

        Go ahead. Give people yet another reason to laugh at you.

        How do you live with yourself?

  7. Zwitserse meteoroloog is klaar met klimaatonzin in de media en klimt in de pen. Lees hier zijn boodschap

    […] [NoTricksZone] Vond je dit artikel goed? Klik dan hieronder om te delen op Facebook/Twitter© Copyright (c) NineForNews.nl NineForNews.nl in je Facebook-nieuwsfeed? […]

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