Two more scientists change sides in the AGW debate

Spread the love

Loading

In fact, it seems as if it isn’t really much of a debate anymore.

First, let me be clear, the debate among scientists isn’t whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas or whether, even, it can cause warming, but instead on what real (if any) total effect it has overall on the climate. In other words, is there a saturation point where additional CO2 has little marginal effect, or does it build to a tipping point where the change is radical? Robust climate or delicate climate?

Evidence is building toward the robust climate theory, which would mean that while there may be more CO2 being emitted, it has little to no effect on the overall climate. That, of course, is contrary to the AGW crowd’s theory.

So, on to the latest high profile defections:

One of the fathers of Germany’s modern green movement, Professor Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt, a social democrat and green activist, decided to author a climate science skeptical book together with geologist/paleontologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning. Vahrenholt’s skepticism started when he was asked to review an IPCC report on renewable energy. He found hundreds of errors. When he pointed them out, IPCC officials simply brushed them aside. Stunned, he asked himself, “Is this the way they approached the climate assessment reports?”

Vahrenholt decided to do some digging. His colleague Dr. Lüning also gave him a copy of Andrew Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion. He was horrified by the sloppiness and deception he found. Persuaded by Hoffmann & Campe, he and Lüning decided to write the book. Die kalte Sonne cites 800 sources and has over 80 charts and figures. It examines and summarizes the latest science.

Vahrenholt concluded, through his research, that the science of the IPCC (if you can call it that) was mostly political and had been “hyped.”

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
5 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Germany was ”ahead of the USA” in this climate madness.
As a result their scientists had the advantage of seeing the catastrophe so-called green energy did to their country.
Whether you read German or not you get the point of this Der Bild cover.16 million Germans read Der Bild. This translates into, “THE CO2 LIES … pure fear-mongering … should we blindly trust the experts?”

Michael Limburg writes from Germany that: ” Germany´s Green Energy Supply Transformation Has Already Failed”. (http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/news-cache/germanys-green-energy-supply-transformation-has-already-failed/)
The intro includes this:

Since a lot of green zealots in all countries praise Germany as the wonderland of manageable green miracles it might be helpful to show them the reality

I am therefore proud and happy to tell you that we managed to translate this very valuable piece of information which reveals the blindness and fanaticism of our present politicians which destroys willingly the backbone of our economy. Please make best use of it. I am sure you will welcome this information. The full report and the press release are attached.

Main headings:
*Germany’s Green Energy Supply Transformation Has Already Failed!
*Weather-dependent supply wreaking havoc on the power grid
*Offshore wind parks, but no transmission lines to industrial regions!
*Activists groups blocking grid expansion

And his conclusion:

“Germany’s energy transformation has already failed. For Germans, the outlook is bleak. …the planned mismanagement is heavily damaging the economy and will fail spectacularly some years later because its economic and social costs will have become unbearable. The question remaining open is how many billions of euros will have to be destroyed before a new energy policy (a new energy transformation?) picks up the shattered pieces.”

I wonder if they finally saw the light or they lost their funding.

I’m waiting for an English language translation of Vahrenholt’s article, or at least a synopsis with direct quotes. There’s been an avalanche of claims that Vahrenholt has essentially “switched sides”, but I haven’t been able to find a single statement in his own words.

I did find the following comments in one article hyping the story:

“It needs to be pointed out Vahrenholt and Lüning are not skeptics; they are lukewarmers who have not been able to find any evidence of a coming climate catastrophe. They believe that man should switch to renewables, but do so in a rational manner: “Work fast, but don’t hurry.”

“Skeptic readers should not think that the book will fortify their existing skepticism of CO2 causing warming. The authors agree it does, but have major qualms about the assumed positive CO2-related feed-backs and believe the sun plays a far greater role in the whole scheme of things.”

Those comments seem inconsistent with any banner headlines reading I CHANGED MY MIND. MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING IS A HOAX, SAYS RENOWN CLIMATE SCIENTIST.

I’d rather not form a conclusion about someone’s statement until I find out what it was that they actually said. That, of course, isn’t the way that propagandists like to operate.

Seems to me that if you consider that volcanoes can spew out many times the CO2 than the human race, if the climate were that sensitive to CO2, it would have already gone into thermal runaway. And it’s no good pointing to Venus either, we have no idea of the initial conditions there.

For those trying to cling to the AGW fantasy like Greg- here’s proof they switched.

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/08/two-more-scientists-change-sides-in-the-agw-debate/