Benny Pieser of the GWPF writes:
Edgar L. Gärtner, a German climate blogger, has written an obituary for Ernst George Beck./ It’s a translation from a German article here. I promised to pass it on to UK and US bloggers (see attachment). – Benny
I’ll have Part4 of Ferdinand Englebeen’s series, which discusses Beck, up tonight. – Anthony
===========================================
My friend Ernst Georg Beck died this week after a long battle with cancer. Ernst Beck was a biology teacher at the Merian technical grammar school in Freiburg and co-founder of the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE). He was a teacher of the old school, whom nobody could lead up the garden path. If a statement of politicians did not fit into its solid scientific conception of the world, he examined it by intensive study of international technical literature and, if possible, by own experiments. His website www.biokurs.de is still a treasure trove for everybody, who prepares for examines or finding answers to current scientific questions.
Due to his immense specialized knowledge and his methodical severity Ernst very promptly noticed numerous inconsistencies in the statements of the Intergovernmental Penal on Climate Change IPCC. He considered the warming of the earth’s atmosphere as a result of a rise of the carbon dioxide content of the air of approximately 0.03 to 0.04 percent as impossible. And it doubted that the curve of the CO2 increase noted on the Hawaii volcano Mauna Loa since 1957/58 could be extrapolated linear back to the 19th century.
Because he knew that for a long time before the introduction of the costly spectroscopic and/or electro acoustical CO2-measures relatively simple, but reliable chemical methods of the CO2-measures were available. Thus, well-known chemists as for instance German chemistry Nobel Laureate Otto Warburg analysed also the composition of air in industry-free, rural regions. With his special meticulousness Beck collected and analysed thousands and thousands of older measurements of the CO2-content of the air and found out that such content has been sometimes higher than today in the first half of the 20th century and also partially in the 19th century. Obvious conclusion: The rise of the CO2-content since 1958 cannot have been caused alone by the burning of rising quantities of coal and oil in the post-war period. And there is also no straight-line connection between the CO2-concentration in the atmosphere and the global temperature development.
Ernst Georg Beck published this analysis three years ago in the British technical periodical “Energy & Environment” and sowed thereby already before “Climategate” in late autumn of 2009 serious doubts about the reliability of the statements of the IPCC. Climatologists who depend on financial funding from the German Government and the European Union and who are closely linked to the IPCC could not forgive him that publication. They tried to denounce Ernst Georg Beck in the Internet as naive amateur and data counterfeiter. Unfortunately, Ernst could hardly defend himself in the last months because of its progressive illness. It is therefore particularly necessary that we as members of EIKE feel obligated to continue the work of our dear colleague, who left us much too early.
Edgar L. Gärtne
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
More renaissance man than a modern “Scientist,” having read about him previously, I mourn his passing.
This news has come as a shock to me. I have been away and out of communication of any kind for some weeks, so I was not aware that Ernst had died.
I consider it a privilege to have been acquainted with Ernst George Beck. His use of English was not perfect and he gave me the honour of improving the grammar of some of his papers for him prior to his submitting them for publication.
His work was meticulous to the degree that it was beyond possibility of serious dispute. Hence, several for whom his findings were ‘inconvenient’ attempted character assassination of him. But history will record his integrity and their dishonour.
The work of Ernst George Beck will stand for ever as a testament to the conscientious, serious and honourable nature of a man whom I boast I had the honour to have known.
Richard
1. “And it doubted that the curve of the CO2 increase…” => “And HE doubted that…”
2. “Ernst could hardly defend himself in the last months because of its progressive illness…” => because of HIS progressive illness…”
– otherwise the translation looks OK to me (but I’m Danish, not German!).
Looks to me like Ernst Beck was an honest, highly capable (and courageous!) scientist.
Sad that he died, of course, but he was wrong about the reliability of the CO2 measurements he trumpeted, did not know how to discriminate useful data from useless, and was not able to accept any arguments that did not fit his preconceptions. As a result, his conclusions were erroneous.
A sad news indeed as he contributed and defended his work in the AirVent when attacked.
“Intergovernmental Penal on Climate Change” … while some may debate whether its members belong in a Penal Institution, it should be “Panel.”
I have to agree with RW (September 23, 2010 at 9:55 am). I am a CAGW skeptic but Beck’s crazy up and down CO2 chart bears no resemblance to reality. We skeptics have much science to back us up but Beck’s work was open to easy attack by alarmists. Yes, sad that he died, but I don’t think he was a help to the climate realism (skeptical) side.
Oh, and his name was Ernst-Georg Beck.
RW:
At September 23, 2010 at 9:55 am you assert:
“Sad that he died, of course, but he was wrong about the reliability of the CO2 measurements he trumpeted, did not know how to discriminate useful data from useless, and was not able to accept any arguments that did not fit his preconceptions. As a result, his conclusions were erroneous.”
With the exception of “Sad that he died” every statement you have made (and I quote here) is factually not correct.
At September 23, 2010 at 9:21 am I wrote:
“His work was meticulous to the degree that it was beyond possibility of serious dispute. Hence, several for whom his findings were ‘inconvenient’ attempted character assassination of him. But history will record his integrity and their dishonour.”
I regret that you choose to continue such dishonourable behaviour (from behind a shield of anonimity) after his demise.
Richard
Hans Henrik Hansen says: 1. “And it doubted that the curve of the CO2 increase…” => “And HE doubted that…”
2. “Ernst could hardly defend himself in the last months because of its progressive illness…” => because of HIS progressive illness…”
– otherwise the translation looks OK to me (but I’m Danish, not German!)….
Thank you. Of course, we aware were that the original was in German written, and allowances made.
RW
While you are entitled to your opinion, would you happen to have any evidence to support your claim that his CO2 measurements were incorrect, or the claim that he could not separate useful data from the useless?
Or does the fact that he disagreed with you make his methods “useless”?
Tain says: “Intergovernmental Penal on Climate Change” … while some may debate whether its members belong in a Penal Institution, it should be “Panel.”
Or Penile.
RW says:
September 23, 2010 at 9:55 am
‘Sad that he died, of course, but he was wrong about the reliability of the CO2 measurements he trumpeted, did not know how to discriminate useful data from useless, and was not able to accept any arguments that did not fit his preconceptions. As a result, his conclusions were erroneous.’
Repellent. There is a time and a place, AND THIS IS NOT IT. Instead of a little restraint, you demonstrate sheer arrogance. What intellectual respect I may have had for you has just evaporated.
Dominic
BBD,
Absolutely correct. Those with little compassion for any outside of their own are the ones who shan’t be missed.
The word shan’t always makes me smile. Thanks Alan for using it. RW you shan’t be missed.
I corresponded frequently with Ernst over the last couple of years, once I had become interested in the historical background to the measurement of CO2 and subsequently realised his immense contribution to the story.
In my thread over at Air Vent a few months ago I wrote an article in which I tried to put into context the developing knowledge of Co2 during the 19th and early 20th Century, its impact on society and the nature of those who took measurements. I also pointed out the compelling case put by those who did not believe the data could be accurate. Ernst enthusiastically joined in and defended his corner against all comers.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/03/06/historic-variations-in-co2-measurements/
Personally I think a significant proportion (but not all) of the tens of thousands of measurements that Ernst unearthed, dating from 1830 onwards, have considerable validity and that CO2 levels in the past were at times as great as, or greater than, today.
It would be a fitting tribute to have the data independently audited as I find it difficult to believe that in 1945 we knew how to split an atom but-according to Ernst’s detractors-were unable to split the atmosphere accurately into its component parts despite many brilliant scientists trying since the 1830’s.
tonyb
I have Beck’s “180 YEARS OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GAS ANALYSIS
BY CHEMICAL METHODS” downloaded as a pdf on my computer hard drive, having done so several years ago. A very interesting read.
RW says: September 23, 2010 at 9:55 am
Sad that he died, of course, but he was wrong about the reliability of the CO2 measurements he trumpeted, did not know how to discriminate useful data from useless, and was not able to accept any arguments that did not fit his preconceptions. As a result, his conclusions were erroneous.
In equally disrespectful terms:
You have penned what may that be your epitaph, it is stunningly appropriate.
Opps, ignore “that” in previous post. RW got me worked up.
REPLY: It’s what he does, shoot from the shadows with malicious intent, but no consequences for him -Anthony
I do not know if the CO2 analysis of Ernst-Georg Beck is correct and it’s irrelevant. RWs comment just shows the venality of some. I for one regret his sad passing, may he be long remembered.
DaveE.
What a sad sad news.
Heres just a few highlights from Becks CO2-related work, very important evidence indeed:
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/co2-carbon-dioxide-concentration-history-of-71.php
Hope a new “Beck” comes around soon….! He was needed.
K.R. Frank
J Felton:
“would you happen to have any evidence to support your claim that his CO2 measurements were incorrect…”
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/lawdome.html
BBD: personally I find the tone of this “obituary” a little bit repellent, as it mentions nothing of who he actually was but is simply an anti-IPCC polemic. I also find it a bit repellent that Watts couldn’t even spell the name of the dead man correctly. I also find it repellent when people pretend to change their view of someone just because they have died, and I will not do this. When his death is being used as an excuse to promote his invalid analysis, it does not seem out of place to point out that his claims about CO2 were, and remain, wrong.
REPLY: I don’t agree with some of his work, but I’m not going to beat him up in his own obituary about it. Sheesh. Have you no social skills at all? I find (as do other posters) YOU a “little bit repellent”. Take an extended time out from WUWT. We don’t need your poison here, and quite frankly I’m sick of your denigration. – Anthony Watts
I never got to meet Ernst but I was privileged to have had a few email exchanges with him. From the little I knew of him, I can say he was astute and dedicated to honest observational science. His work will stand as testament to this.
His main CO2 website is located here:
http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/realCO2-1.htm
RW says:
[Beck] “…was wrong about the reliability of the CO2 measurements he trumpeted, did not know how to discriminate useful data from useless, and was not able to accept any arguments that did not fit his preconceptions. As a result, his conclusions were erroneous.”
That is a pure example of psychological projection. No citations, only baseless opinion, similar to Phil Jones’ inappropriate happy email spreading the news of the passing of the great John L. Daly. Everything RW said applies to RW, who projects his personal faults onto a meticulous and honest scientist.
Dr Beck collated and analyzed over 90,000 separate CO2 measurements taken by esteemed, internationally recognized scientists, including Nobel laureates [when the Nobel Prize still meant something]. Most of those scientists [Haldane excepted for his mine work] took no government money, but compiled their CO2 records out of personal curiosity. They kept hand-written records of their measurements, including detailed drawings of their test apparatus. They knew their work would be inspected by other scientists, and they cared about their reputations.
Perhaps not all 90,000+ measurements were completely accurate. So if we throw out the 20,000 highest and the 20,000 lowest CO2 measurements, we are still left with over 50,000 measurements showing that CO2 was significantly higher than today’s in both the early 1800’s and in the 1940’s — thus driving another stake through the heart of the increasingly preposterous notion that CO2 levels held steady at 280 – 285 ppmv from the MWP until the mid-1800’s.
Dr Beck’s sources were CO2 measurements taken on isolated rural sea coasts far from cities, on unpopulated mountain tops, and on the windward side of ships crossing the Atlantic, Pacific, South Pacific, Beaufort, Arctic, and Antarctic seas and oceans, far away from any human emissions.
The desperation to argue that Beck’s results are wrong is apparent in comments like RW’s. But Beck’s peer-reviewed work has never been falsified.
Dr Beck will certainly be missed by everyone who appreciates the way science worked before it became corrupted by big money, by big government, by the UN, and by unrepresentative, unelected NGO’s. He was one of a dying breed: a scientist who went where the data took him, rather than one who hammered the data into the shape required to produce grant money.
I too corresponded with Ernst Beck to a limited extent as a consequence of TonyB’s thread on the Airvent. It was sometimes hard to follow his reasoning as he was not fluent in English, and frequently lost his temper when baited. But when calmed down and asked to explain the concepts and terminology he was using, even his off the cuff remarks about “lunar phase reversal” turned out to be a poor choice of words to describe a very legitimate scientific analysis.
He was a brilliant and honorable man. If there are errors in his work, they are certainly not the result of “adjustments”, and unlike his critics, he published his data. Right or wrong his work was sincere and his passing is a loss to science.
There are so few skeptics in Germany; each one we lose is a blow to climate science. But that loss indeed is miniscule when compared to the sense of loss and grief his family and friends must feel now at this time. They have lost a family member; and so our thoughts are with them.