German Measurement Expert Joins Nobel Laureate Ivar Giaever: “AGW Science Is Pseudoscience”!

Share this...

A German expert joins renowned physicists in pointing out that the climate data harbor far too much uncertainty and that conclusions drawn from such data are “pseudoscience”. 

At geologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning’s Die kalte Sonne here, Dr. Andreas Karl presents an essay on the reliability of the modern temperature record (1850-2020) based on recorded measurements.

1880: 1 dataset per 3 million sq km

It is a fact that land surface temperature records going back before 1900 globally are very few and sparse. Worldwide there are only 116 stations Version 3, unadjusted datasets going back to January 1880 – most of them are located in USA (northern hemisphere).

The temporal development of temperature measurement stations distributed over the earth over a period of 100 years, 1885-1985. Source: Energy & Environment · Vol. 22, No. 4, 2011; Pat Frank “Imposed and Neglected Uncertainty in the Global Average Surface”.

In 1880 it was just 116 stations for measuring the earth’s 510.1 million km². Obviously the data are nowhere near sufficient to allow any conclusions having any degree of certainty.

In his essay, Karl examines the available database and how the whole discussion about “climate change” and “global warming” is based on the temperature data of the last 170 years, i.e. the start of the Industrial Revolution.

How reliable are the worldwide directly measured data of the last 170 years? Not very reliable at all, Karl concludes, citing renowned physicists like Freeman Dyson, and agrees with highly respected Norwegian-American physicist and Nobel Prize winner Ivar Giaever, who called climate science “a pseudo-science”.

In his essay Karl concludes:

The basis of all arguments and conclusions of the IPCC, climate scientists and climate alarmists is the available worldwide average temperatures since 1850. The time at the beginning of industrialization is, so to speak, viewed as the “absolute zero point” for the temperature development on our earth. This reference point was chosen because from that point on mankind contributed relevantly to the increase of the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. The so-called anthropogenic CO2 contribution. But what is the use of having strong walls, massive ceilings and a solid roof if the foundation of a building is designed too weak? The fact is, the available temperature data (foundation) are subject to error. The magnitude of error is in a range where referencing this data makes no scientific sense. All the efforts of climate scientists with their increasingly powerful large computers will not improve the simulations of the future of the earth’s climate. The data base is poor, the knowledge of the highly complex climate still low (Freeman Dyson). Therefore, climate science, which focuses solely on the effect of anthropogenic CO2, remains a pseudo-science.”


[1]  Ivar Giaever, The Strange Case of Global Warming, 2012 in Lindau (DE)

[2]  Ivar Giaever, Global Warming Revisited, 2015 in Lindau (DE)

[3]  Energy & Environment · Vol. 21, No. 8, 2010; Pat Frank; Uncertainty in the global average surface
air temperature index: representative lower limit

[4]  Energy & Environment · Energy & Environment · Vol. 22, No. 4, 2011; Pat Frank „Imposed and
Neglected Uncertainty in the Global Average Surface

[5]  Patricia Adams in GWPF, 2020


[7]  Metoffice:

Share this...

16 responses to “German Measurement Expert Joins Nobel Laureate Ivar Giaever: “AGW Science Is Pseudoscience”!”

  1. Chris Hanley

    “There are a variety of cognitive biases that can adversely affect analysis [data analysis]. For example, confirmation bias …” (Wiki).
    The satellite data covering almost the entire globe were expected to resolve many of the problems bedevilling the surface data.
    It is almost certain the planet has warmed since 1979, from whatever cause, as the two main satellite series show but at dramatically different rates, RSS at nearly twice the rate of UAH:
    That is an enormous discrepancy over such a relatively short period, both cannot be correct.

    1. mwhite

      “On election day in 2016, both satellite data sets (UAH and RSS) showed a 15 year long hiatus in global warming, and bore no resemblance to the warming trend being generated by NOAA and NASA.”

      et Voila.

  2. John F Hultquist

    We live on the east slope of the Cascade Mountains in Washington State. Vegetation here is of a transition area of Ponderosa Pine upslope and west, and sage brush/steppe to the east (some cold desert to SE). Experts call it an ecotone. The temperature range is from -30°C to 43°C [ -20°F to 110°F].
    Since the waning of the last glacial advance, to our north, the vegetative zones developed and are basically the same as thousands of years ago. The plants haven’t gotten the memos that their climate is changing.
    I don’t think they care about that one or two degree increase some folks claim is an existential threat to them.

  3. John F Hultquist

    Chris Hanley wrote: “That is an enormous discrepancy ..” regarding <0.4 difference .

    Insofar as there are multiple issues, technology, choices, and whatever – my thought is that these estimates are remarkably close.
    Roy Spencer of UAH has explained much of the process at his blog. A summary might be "It's complicated."

  4. AlexS

    “remarkably close.”

    How so?

    1. rw

      If you had any idea of how complicated it is to derive temperatures from satellite MSUs and to compile data from orbiting satellites into some sort of global ‘average’, not to mention stitching together the records from about a dozen separate satellites (some with MSUs, some with AMSUs), then you would agree that RSS and UAH have generally been “remarkably close” – and may still be. (In my study of this area I’ve only gotten up to 2011, so beyond that I can’t say from actual reading).

    2. Yonason


      “remarkably close.”

      How so?

      They aren’t. Too much uncertainty. But, I suppose, with all that wiggle room, one can claim the RSS is close to anything they want.

  5. drumphish

    Here in the hinterlands of the North American continent, at my location, the record high temperature was set in 2004 at 50 degrees Fahrenheit.

    The record low was set in 1916 at -44 degrees Fahrenheit. A difference of 94 degrees. Go figure. You can’t make this stuff up.

    For tomorrow’s weather history, the high was set in 1979 at 49 degrees F and the record low was set on December 21, 1916 with a temp of -44 F, two days in a row of record low temps in 1916.

    Novarupta, the volcanic eruption in 1912 at Katmai caused some climate change all by its lonesome.

  6. Harry Dale Huffman

    Climate hysteria, the same as “covid-19” hysteria, and the same as “fossil fuel” hysteria.

    Political abuse of massively, irredeemably incompetent, wrong-headed science. Across the board in science, for decades, up to and including 160 years, since the pseudoscience of Darwin turned all of hard science soft and fundamentally misdirected it all. All that we are seeing today are the fruits of that wrong turning, to the point of political suicide.

    There has been NO COMPETENT SCIENCE in the debates, throughout. There is no global warming, no “greenhouse effect” upon “global temperature”, no real reason to ever have resurrected it from the junkpile of failed theories 60 years ago. Five years ago, I wrote:

    “MONDAY, JUNE 8, 2015
    It Is Fraud, Not Climate Science At All

    The whole ‘debate’ is laughably incompetent (and has been
    for 25 years–since the inception of the UN’s IPCC, it should be
    emphasized). All of these ‘experts’ fall far short of
    competence by not demanding the immediate firing of Karl (et
    al.) for deliberate deception–fraud, that is–and the immediate
    rescinding of any and all regulations falling under the general
    heading of ‘climate policy’. Earth’s ‘climate’ varies internally
    (over the globe, you see) from tropical to polar, but the global
    average (as referenced by the global mean surface
    temperature) is unchanging, as the century-old Standard
    Atmosphere model of the atmosphere implies, and that model
    is precisely–precisely–confirmed by the simple comparison of
    temperatures in the atmospheres of Earth (with .04% CO2)
    and Venus (with a whopping 96.5%). There is no discernible
    global warming greenhouse effect, a simple fact that no
    ‘expert’–or politician–will truthfully admit.

    “The proper lesson of the present debate… is that
    the data used to calculate the global mean surface temperature
    (GMST) by today’s climate scientists is too noisy (naturally
    varying and uncertainly measured) to support any claim of
    global warming at all, and it has to be tortured–fraudulently,
    to any truly competent physical scientist–to do so. That’s what
    the man on the street should be hearing from any so-called

  7. tom0mason

    When looking at weather or climate it is NOT so much the temperature that matters, more so is the temperature differentials.
    For instance solar effects ensure —
    The equator’s average annual temperature is about 20°C.
    The Northern Polar region’s average annual temperature is about -3°C.
    The Southern Polar region’s average annual temperature is at least -30°C.
    Thus air masses are chaotically moved around from equator to poles depending on these temperature differentials. And it is this movement with the take-up of humidity from the oceans, and particles from the land and seas that ensures the weather and climate are very difficult to predict.

    IMO even if CO2 could ‘warm the planet’ (no it can’t) by 2°C, the temperature differentials from equator to pole ensure that it’s effects are negligible as it is lost in a minimum differential of 23°C (northern hemisphere), or a minimum of over 50°C (southern hemisphere). As it is CO2’s effect is more probably much, much less than this at around a few 1/10th’s of 1°C — aka lost in the planet’s thermal dynamics and noise.

  8. Zoe Phin

    How new data coverage comes in OVER time effects the global average.

  9. Jean-Luc Mélice

    Alors, Pierre Gosselin,

    On essaye de jouer à l’intelligent?

    Je crois que le seule solution pour toi est de vite rentrer dans une asile pour vieillards…

    Je serais ravis que tu m’envoies to CV, qui doit être minable… ainsi que tes publications scientifiques.

    Bien à toi,

    Jean-Luc Mélice

    1. Yonason
  10. Yonason
  11. AGW Skeptic Marc Morano Receives DEATH THREAT From Sorbonne University Professor’s Email Account

    […] on the same day, December 30th, also had received an unfriendly comment from someone claiming to be Prof. […]

  12. AGW Skeptic Marc Morano Receives DEATH THREAT From Sorbonne University Professor’s Email Account – Climate-

    […] on the same day, December 30th, also had received an unfriendly comment from someone claiming to be Prof. […]

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