Former KNMI director and skeptic Henk Tennekes gets vindication from Netherlands De Telegraaf

Here’s a bit of interesting news from a Dutch newspaper. WUWT readers may recall this story:

Scientist quits: ‘I don’t want to remain a member of an organization that …screws up science that badly.’ Henk Tennekes Resigns from Dutch Academy. Now there is a new twist to the story.

Click for newspaper article

From Lawrence Solomon: De Telegraaf, the Netherlands’ largest daily newspaper, has totally vindicated the country’s most prominent global warming denier in a prominent article entitled “Henk Tennekes – He was right after all.”

Tennekes was the director of the Netherlands Meteorological Institute, KNMI, until the early 1990s, when his skepticism of the climate science coming out of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change led to his forced resignation.

A translation into English of De Telegraaf’s vindication appears here.

Translation by: Richard Sumner (UK)

Advertisements

116 thoughts on “Former KNMI director and skeptic Henk Tennekes gets vindication from Netherlands De Telegraaf

  1. Glad to see the article. Not so glad to see the descriptor “denier”. Its been thrown around so much that people have seemingly forgotten its origin and the terrible smear that it was intended to be on skeptics. Its use should be resisted as much as the lies it was intended to shield.

  2. Thank you, Henk Tennekes, for having the courage to speak the truth.

    May the tiny trickle of the climategate leak expand into a thorough flush of the filth that has infected the news media, research institutions and scientific journals.

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Emeritus Professor of
    Nuclear & Space Sciences
    Former NASA PI for Apollo

  3. “He was right after all”

    What exactly was he right about? About the only bit of science in the whole article sounds like a reference to the Argo floats, before Willis found his error.

    The rest is opinions, in the eye of the beholder.

    REPLY: yes much like yours, except expressed by a newspaper writer with a name, not a phantom.

  4. I like this guy.Seems like the crowd didn’t like a scientist being among them.Too bad it’s been so long for him to be recognized as being sane let alone right.

  5. “And it undergoes
    crazy physiological changes during
    the flight. All of its fat and half of
    its flight muscles are burned up by
    the time it reaches its destination.
    Even its heart has shrunk. People
    have no idea of the flexibility of
    living things! “

    A flying machine that consumes itself for fuel:I am awe-struck.

  6. The IPCC certainly found it’s handbasket.
    One of the first things I came across when looking into AGW 2 years ago was the list of corrections they intended to apply, irregardless of the consequences.
    Frightening, yes, much more so than any Global Warming.
    I prefer to call the mindset that is bent on applying such measures “Tired of Living”.

  7. Ah,that bit about the Upper layers of Ocean is something I have been wondering about myself.Nino’s crashing like a cheap kite.Joe Bastardi’s European Blog has
    some interesting comments about the next Nina.Let’s put it this way i’m not selling my F-150 anytime soon…

  8. This is very good and it provides a big push for the skeptics in a country that was almost sleeping and now slowly wakes up.

    Of course it should have been published on the front page but a la, you can’t have it all.

    I would like to thank Prof. Dr. Ing. Tennekes for all his work and his courage to stand up for his opinion when everybody else is howling with the wolfs.

    He truly is a great person.

    I also would like to thank the Journalist and his newspaper for publishing this.

  9. feeling quite depressed after reading scores of articles on de boer today. virtually none, from the right or the left, referred to any problem with the science and all tried to place a positive spin on the story. how any media could report this story without referring to climategate or other ‘gates’
    boggles the mind. this is the only bright spot:

    Business Week: De Boer Quits UN Post in ‘Sad Day’ for Carbon Market (Update2)
    “It’s a sad day for the carbon market, and we’ll be lucky to get somebody with Yvo’s dedication and hard work as a successor,” Trevor Sikorski, an emissions analyst for Barclays Capital in London, said today in an interview..
    De Boer’s resignation “adds to the uncertainty of the political process that is hopefully going to create the context for an international market going forward,” Alessandro Vitelli, director of strategy in London at carbon markets analyst IDEAcarbon, said today in a telephone interview. “It’s a slight knock to the guys buying and selling carbon.”…
    De Boer said he decided to resign so he could spend more time with his family, approach climate change from a business angle rather than a political one, and because he felt the Copenhagen accord showed the world is “politically committed to moving forward.
    http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-02-18/de-boer-quits-un-climate-post-in-sad-day-for-carbon-market.html

  10. I’ve noticed on the last couple of threads that the trolls seem to have become tad strident of late, must of been something they read. Kinda reminds me of group of pekingese yapping in all their diminutive fury.

  11. carrot eater (20:05:45) :
    The rest is opinions, in the eye of the beholder.

    He is not alone.
    I happen to share many of his opinions.
    The tragedy is not his, time bore him out.
    The good intentioned people who never bother themselves to inspect what they are getting into: those are the tragic victims. In another way of expressing things, evil prefers its useful idiots to be spoon fed.

  12. Ditto on the courage observation ! How many others had to change the way they approached their careers with concerns over the group acceptance factor ?

    One thing becoming more and more obvious is the far reaching effects of advocacy groups like WWF – pure eco evil.

  13. I like this guy too. I appreciate his frustrations. I appreciate the ruination of a noble career simply because he adhered to scientific principles. And I bet there are a lot of others who have similarly had their careers stalled, or worse. And even more who were too scared to speak up because they have seen what happens to the likes of Mr. Tennekes.

    Similarly in politics, any politician who stood up and said, “Hey wait a minute! Not sure about this rush to save the planet. Not sure the science is settled” was branded a dinosaur and slaughtered by the media. So no politician has dared stand up and end their career so decisively.

    Where is the humility in the scientific community? It seems to have flown out the window in proportion to the quantity of research funding which has flown in.

  14. pat (20:21:55) :

    Depressed? No need to be. What Copehagen showed is a gathering of “What’s in it for me” birds. The Agenda may have had its’ inner circle of concensus, but that’s as far as concensus gets.

  15. Follow the Money (20:29:49) :
    To quote the Marx Bros.,
    “Why a duck?”>

    Vague reference to an olds Buggs Bunny cartoon in which Daffy Duck runs over the edge of a cliff, hangs in the air for a moment, gulps, and says in a tone full of shock and dismay “gravity works” just before he falls out of sight.

    Gravity works. Thermodynamics works. AGW, not so much.

    Congrats on hanging in there Henk. My wallet thanks you as do my creditors who feared my ability to pay.

  16. That sort of article is usually called a “profile”, often proceeded by the phrase “puff piece”. I don’t see the vindication here.

  17. “Does a falling body feel its own weight?” No– acceleration is equivalent to gravitational force (General Theory). Only when you hit the floor do you go splat.

    Climate Cultists’ Green Gang of propagandists, Warmsters, are yet in free-fall, “all right so far”. But splat-time is accelerating towards an inevitable, final THUD.

  18. I am about ready to walk out on my own profession! Got into a debate (not related to climate) that left me wanting to chew up and spit out nails. Can’t wait till my end of the year evaluation. It will be something worth framing!

    Pam Gray, BS, MS, MA
    Midget First Class
    Redheaded Mattress Thrasher
    Fired

  19. rbateman (20:39:44) :
    carrot eater (20:05:45) :

    evil prefers its useful idiots to be spoon fed.

    Carrot soup ??

  20. Rob M (20:14:44) : “And it undergoes crazy physiological changes…

    Seems out of context here, Rob, but I would like see what it refers to. Can you explain?

  21. “I am much more anxious about the cooling of the earth. The ultimate fate of this planet is a new ice age.” – Henk Tennekes

    The amazing thing is Dr. Tennekes’ conclusion was the consensus 30 years ago. In fact, the 100K-year climate cycle of the Plio-Pleistocene was recognized and dated in deep-sea sediment cores by 1970, 40 years ago!

    http://www.egu.eu/awards-medals/award/milutin_milankovic/medalist/283.html

    No new findings have altered that conclusion, although the scientific consensus has somehow dissipated. Now the great fear is that the planet might get warmer and the on-coming next glaciation somehow averted.

    What kind of paranoia is that? Fear of warming? It’s like the fear of winning the lottery, or the fear that someone will discover the cure for cancer.

    That’s what I just don’t get about global warming alarmism. It’s not something to be alarmed about. Joy and relief are the more rational emotional responses, if emotions can ever be considered rational.

  22. The importance of this article is similar to the resignation of De Boer, and several other stories of late:

    People are speaking out, more and more…..

    BP, Conoco, Cat, et al pulling out of the Climate Coalition

    Arizona pulls out of regional states pact…. and Utah right behind them after Utah’s “no confidence” vote recently.

    California’s debate over AB32…. Senate block of EPA, suits from all quarters

    Certainty in the “science” is broken. The dam is leaking. It is likely only a matter of time, and will accelerate from here.

  23. carrot muncher (20:05:45) :

    The rest is opinions, in the eye of the beholder.

    >>>

    Henk Tennekes: “But I wanted to get to the heart of the problem. Are these forecast models reliable? No funny, everyone thought. Looking for the truth? You must be mad! That means you have to accept the fallibility of these models. That’s much too dangerous. Most of the KNMI researchers were happy if they could just sit in the cafeteria with their like-minded colleagues.”

    >>>

    I think he was trying to convey that models were not a good method to assess the situation and that was his opinion 20 years ago. We know now as fact that the models were, and are garbage for assessing future climate. His theory was proved correct and AGW theory has been disproven. ..eye of the beholder indeed…

  24. rbateman (20:39:44) :

    You can share or not share his opinions, that is perfectly fine and good. I was just hoping that a ‘vindication’ would include more than just stories of how his colleagues didn’t like him. Of course maybe Tennekes had more to say on science itself; he can’t tell them what all to print.

  25. Tennekes says the top km of the ocean has turned colder in the last 5 years. How is that compatible with oceans rising during that same period? Given that by far most of the climate energy is stored in the oceans, why is there more focus on surface temperatures than on ocean temps?

  26. Dr. Tennekes made two statements that sum up the tribal behavior of warmist scientists:

    “KNMI’ers still avoid me like the plague, because I say something different from the group dogma. First you must believe in something, only then you are allowed to participate in their discussions”

    “No, I’m not surprised about the fuss surrounding current climate
    research. This storm has been brewing for years. The contributions of climate sceptics disappear unnoticed in the rubbish bin.”

    I am appreciative of his holding to his core principles and maintaining his intellectual honesty through 20 years of vitriol heaped upon him by the warmist community of scientists.

    carrot eater (20:05:45) :

    “About the only bit of science in the whole article sounds like a reference to the Argo floats, before Willis found his error.

    You were expecting a peer reviewed published abstract? It’s a newspaper article.

  27. Follow the Money (20:29:49) :

    > “Why a duck?”

    Probably because it flies. A coworker of mine some 10 or 12 years ago was so taken with Tennekes’ The Simple Science of Flight that he bought a dozen more copies and passed them out to people who felt he owed favors to, myself included. I don’t recall if the book said anything about duck flight, but given their air speed, it may.

  28. Well, duh. IPCC crooked? Who didn’t see that… Good stuff though. I love messing with the warmers – it’s just fun.

  29. On the NPR program “On Point” this evening, two men are discussing nuclear power with the hostess. One is from the Union of Concerned Scientists, so we know where he stands. The other is a nuclear engineering professor at the University of Wisconsin. Both are asked about the President’s recent conversion to the view that nuclear energy will help prevent ‘climate change’ because it is ‘carbon free’.

    The UCS guy says, nope, still too many problems; there are other ways to deal with ‘climate change’. The UWI guy says, oh nuclear is fine, and and it will definitely help with ‘climate change’.

    Clearly neither of these savants (nor the hostess) have any inkling that the science of anthropogenic global warming, aka ‘climate change’, is in tatters, and never was well-founded. Nor is this blind ignorance unique. It is gospel for the President and his so-called science advisors. The litany that ‘carbon’ (meaning CO2) causes catastrophic ‘climate change’ (meaning global warming) is still a basic tenet of the worldview of most of the press, media, academics, and bureaucrats in the Western world.

    The program began with an intelligent report by a Wall-Street Journal writer, who suggested that the President’s endorsement of nuclear power was really a subterfuge to get wavering Democrats and pro-nuke Republicans to sign on to his faltering ‘climate’ legislation, aka Crap and Tax. This presumably would have been perfectly acceptable to the participants, since all blithely assume the moral imperative of ‘fighting climate change’ (do any of them know that Obambi is a founder of the Chicago Carbon Exchange?).

    How are we going to penetrate this wall of fervent, unquestioned belief? Clearly scandal and evident fraud in the ‘climate science’ world is not enough. It will take more, but perhaps the acknowledgement in one small paper that the brave Henk Tennekes was right after all is a start.

    When will we see articles like this in The Washington Post about John Coleman, or Fred Singer, or Richard Lindzen? I won’t hold my breath.

    /Mr Lynn

  30. I suppose the duck because they couldn’t find a good picture of a bar-tailed godwit.

    I think the term to use for Dr Tennekes would be irascible. He’s earned the right to be irascible, I suppose.

  31. rbateman (20:52:55) :
    pat (20:21:55) :

    Depressed? No need to be. What Copehagen showed is a gathering of “What’s in it for me” birds. The Agenda may have had its’ inner circle of concensus, but that’s as far as concensus gets.
    ———–
    It might have been a typo except for the repetition; “concensus” instead of ‘consensus’, but it affords an opportunity to make the (rather trivial) point that the etymology of ‘consensus’ reveals the non-intellectual nature of the phenomenon. The Latin origin makes it a “feeling together”, not ‘thinking together’. ‘Concredence’ should have a place in the dictionary, but it doesn’t.

  32. To carrot eater (21:23:27) :
    Hey, I don’t wish to pile on, but really, the fundamental question is, are we getting warmer? It is just math. Yes, math is a science, of sorts, but all of us can do it. Let’s begin with the fundamental question. Are we getting warmer? Well, first you have to start with the temps, collectively and then average……….oh, wait, darn, we deleted the data set. Never mind that, we’re scientists!!!! So, who you gonna believe, you or Henk?? He’s a bonafide scientist!! A scientist or two say so, so it is real and truth, right? Isn’t that what we’re told? Oh, wait……there are literally thousands of scientist that say otherwise, right?………….Where are they? Who are they? Please list them. And, lol, please list the ones that haven’t profited by big oil!!!! Namely, Shell, BP, and Conoco. Or even Caterpillar!!!

  33. carrot eater (21:23:27) :

    Telling someone what to print/agree to/favorably review because it’s good for the cause is a slippery slope.
    He knew where this was leading, though I suppose he didn’t imagine at the time it would take 20 years.

  34. rbateman (22:03:03) :

    To what are you referring? The assertion that he was eventually fired in retaliation for his views, and some column he wrote?

  35. I don’t see a “vindication” here either. If somebody wrote a flattering article about Michael Mann or Al Gore (not that they need it) I doubt very many people would consider them “vindicated.”

    Nor I am confident that he needs to be “vindicated.” He left a job, many years ago. We don’t know the circumstances; he says he was fired. We don’t know if that’s because he was accused of something, or for some other reason.

    It’d be really interesting to see the column that he says got him fired. Given he says he’s worried about a cooling world, it’d be great if we could dig it up and find some testable predictions. Then we good measure him up for real (non-tabloid) “vindication.”

  36. Look at the picture in the post. You have to be a fan of Marx Bros humour and recall the scene between Chico and Groucho to understand the comment.

    Chico says something along the lines of “whya duck… wya no chicken?.

  37. I get really annoyed that we’re here to save nature. That’s a terrible overstatement of our abilities.

    Tennekes, but it sounds like maybe something from a Humphrey Bogart/Peter Lori movie – first sentence Bogart, then Lori, “But, Rick, that is a terrible overstatemnt of our abilities.”

  38. “”””Pamela Gray (21:10:00) : I am about ready to walk out on my own profession . . . . “””””

    Pamela,

    There are wonderful doorways to alternate opportunities but one cannot see them until you leave the situation you are in and close it’s door firmly behind you.

    I have had that experience, it is exhilarating.

    John

  39. I wonder if all those soon to be unemployed rocket scientists at NASA are wishing they spoke up a bit earlier about James Hansen

  40. So what was his position at KNMI? The post and Solomon’s headline calls him the Director of KNMI, but the article describes him as Director of Policy Development, and talks about how his boss forced him out.

  41. Rob M

    “A flying machine that consumes itself for fuel:I am awe-struck.”

    Have a look at the story of E-7 on this web site:

    http://www.miranda-shorebird.org.nz/

    There is now also a beautiful and expert book by a serious scientist. And importantly these birds have shown no sign of changing their ways that are dictated by the comings and goings of the annual global climate.

    I am off to visit some of them this Sunday.

  42. It would be good to have a summary of what’s left of the science behind global warming. You know, now that homeless people in DC are being given copies of AR4 to burn and keep themselves warm under 30+ inches of snow…

  43. Shades of John H. Sununu, an MIT engineering graduate who publically doubted AGW . White House Chief of Staff under President George H. W. Bush (1989-1991), he was well-versed in modeling and knew that climate models were travesties.

    The mainstream media hounded him out of office.

    The big difference is that he has yet to be repatriated.

  44. “De Boer’s successor should be someone who knows the UN process and the sensitivities of the nations involved, said Bernarditas Muller, a delegate from the Philippines who negotiated at UN climate meetings since the first one in 1995. She declined to speculate on who may take the post. …This time, perhaps we will have someone from a developing country,” Muller said today in a telephone interview.”

    “Robert Stavins, director of Harvard University’s Environmental Economics program, wrote on Dec. 20 that conducting negotiations among a smaller group of big emitters “could be an increasingly attractive route.”

    The outgoing climate chief [Yvo] said that there’s ‘no case whatsoever’ for narrowing down the talks.”

    Do you get the impression by reading these attitudes that these people are cluless? They live in a tiny little world of their own making.

  45. “But these green bureaucrats do not understand the meaning of the proverb. It is the road to HELL that is paved with good intentions, not the road to HEAVEN.”

    Perhaps this is why people in the IPCC cabal can live with themselves. They feel that even if they have to bend the data and spread alarmism, it’s worth sacrificing science it to get the action necessary to change the world?

    I think Climatology and cargo-cult science are now synonymous!

  46. Mike D. (21:15:40) :

    What kind of paranoia is that? Fear of warming? It’s like the fear of winning the lottery, or the fear that someone will discover the cure for cancer.

    Well, leftists’ mindset is characterized by aversion to any uncertainty or risk because of fear that someone might be luckier than them. They don’t fear that we all will die some day – what they fear is that you or me might live longer than them. The crusade against me smoking is not because they fear I might get cancer – what they fear is that I might derive some pleasure from it and get away without any cancer at all.

    Yes, at least some of them probably fear the cure for cancer, too. What, all those people who made ‘unhealthy choices’ and derived pleasure from doing so are not going to pay for that? That’s not equitable!

    [These paragraphs contain ~13% sarcasm].

  47. “carrot eater (20:05:45) :

    “He was right after all”

    What exactly was he right about?”

    About everything, carrot, about everything that he talks about…

  48. Predicador (00:48:54) : [These paragraphs contain ~13% sarcasm].

    And 87% reality, I believe, Predicador. I was thinking much the same, myself — with variations.

  49. David Jones (20:22:29) : I’ve noticed on the last couple of threads that the trolls seem to have become tad strident of late, must of been something they read. Kinda reminds me of group of pekingese yapping in all their diminutive fury.

    Yup, and with a new crop of pseudonyms too. Don’t know if it’s because the “old trolls” decided they needed to “freshen” themselves with a new persona (due to too much quotable baggage? Hard to flip/ flop with a record…) or they are too busy with testimony and a new crop was hired by their sponsors…

    Personally, I think it’s a new crop of student interns being hired for this quarter / semester somewhere. If you were a Sorros or similar funding such an operation, funding ‘interns’ would be an expected way to do it.

    At any rate, I’m not very impressed. And this crop doesn’t even have the faux feminist being “offended” by trivial things. Oh, and the talking points seem to be getting a re-write. (So many of them now mooted by the FOIA docs and emails…) so some of the scripted responses are a bit stilted.

    But hey, you work with what you’ve got…

  50. Pamela Gray (21:10:00) : … Fired.

    suggested reading. “Who Stole My Cheese”. A practical view of life. Reading time less than an hour.

    Co2 Cap and Trade. Why (beside Wall Street) would business be for it?
    The Cap
    The government would issue X amount of permits. What happens if Charley wants to open up a business to compete with an existing permit holder? Sorry Charley, all the permits are allocated, your SOL. The existing permit holders just imitated future competition.
    The Trade.
    Sam wants to expand his business. Sam would have to go to the market place to purchase more CO2 credits. They have become “The New Gold”commodity. Sam looks to “off shore” and finds no place to go. Therefore, Sam does not expand.
    Real life example.
    The Cap.
    In my area, the city will only allow x amount of liquor permits for population density. In certain areas, liquor permits are worth hundreds of thousand of dollars.
    The Trade.
    It would be like all the liquor permit holders agree (with the blessing of governments) to pay the town 20 miles down the road to remain dry.
    This is why certain businesses are for it (GE).

  51. A true hero if ever there was one! Now we can see how it all works in every western country there is, move out the bad no men & women, & install the good yes men & women!

  52. “Mark (01:43:53) :

    He disproved all the bold claims about climate change did he? All of them? Impressive.”

    That’s not what i said. You’re not making sense.

  53. “E.M.Smith (02:14:06) :
    […]
    Personally, I think it’s a new crop of student interns being hired for this quarter / semester somewhere.”

    Maybe the last batch already got converted through to much information exposure and is no more use for AGW…

  54. “old construction worker (02:19:19) :
    […]
    This is why certain businesses are for it (GE).”

    You’re right, it’s called “barrier to entry” and big businesses favor such regulation schemes through heavy lobbying to protect their market against startups and smaller competitors.

  55. philincalifornia (21:10:26)
    rbateman (20:39:44)
    carrot eater (20:05:45)

    A question to you ‘carrot eater’, which end eats the carrot ?

    Max Bros, maybe there very best movie, ‘Duck Soup’ (1939 68 min. )

    Pamela Gray (41:10:00)
    The number one medicine for a little depression, 68 minutes of ‘Duck Soup’.

  56. Dirk,

    Dirk old chum, whatever gave you the idea I was talking to or about you? Have a read of the article. It’s not all about you.

  57. carrot eater (22:16:06) :

    To what are you referring? The assertion that he was eventually fired in retaliation for his views, and some column he wrote?

    “carrot eater (21:23:27) :
    he can’t tell them what all to print.”

    You.

  58. But has he actually been proved right about anything – or does he just have a larger group of disciples? I only see evidence of the latter in replies to Carrot Eater.

    We might be skeptical about the case for AGW, and in particular some of the entries in IPCC AR4, but I haven’t noticed anyone actually debunk the theory. We’re all just barking at the moon.

  59. John Hooper (04:46:02) :

    But has he actually been proved right about anything – or does he just have a larger group of disciples? I only see evidence of the latter in replies to Carrot Eater.

    We might be skeptical about the case for AGW, and in particular some of the entries in IPCC AR4, but I haven’t noticed anyone actually debunk the theory. We’re all just barking at the moon.

    Sigh. You still don’t get it. AGW is not a “theory”, its an unsubstantiated hypothesis, increasingly being falsified. We’re waiting…

    Pamela Gray…

    Redheaded mattress thrasher
    fired

    Hmm. Come east. I have an app for that.

  60. John Hooper (04:46:02)

    It isn’t up to anyone to “debunk the theory” (I presume you are referring to the AGW theory). It is up to those who espouse the theory to prove it is an accurate model for predicting future occurrences. This has NOT happened as yet.

    Data were “managed” to fit the theory. Models were then developed based upon the new data. Unfortunately, the predictions of the models haven’t come true.

    Looks to me like the AGW Theory needs to go back to the drawing board.

    For me, I just find it so unbelievably simplistic to accept the notion that a small amount of one trace gas (CO2) can have such a huge impact on globe. Also, based upon professional experience as a forecaster of other time series (where the data were accurate and plentiful), I do not believe that humans will ever be able to accurately model the climate, never mind trying to determine the causes of it.

  61. John Hooper (04:46:02) :

    “…I haven’t noticed anyone actually debunk the theory. We’re all just barking at the moon.”

    Well, maybe some of us are barking at the moon. But whether you notice it or not, the theory hypothesis that a rise in CO2 will cause runaway global warming and climate catastrophe [CAGW] has been repeatedly debunked. So a new bogeyman must now be found to take its place. And of course, it must, as always, be blamed on us. But with particulate pollution [soot], that’s going to be difficult.

    The alarmist contingent hangs their collective hats on Svante Arrenhius, whose 1896 paper predicted a fantastic 5°C rise in temperature with a doubling of CO2 [the scaremongers never mention Arrenhius’ 1906 paper, in which he drastically reduced his sensitivity number to 1.6°C].

    Except for the always-alarmist IPCC, the current consensus for climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 [which can not happen, even if all the known fossil fuel reserves are burned], is 0.5° C or less.

    That makes CO2 emissions a complete non-problem. The alarmists know this, so they are busy moving the goal posts once again, this time to arm-waving about aerosol emissions.

    Aerosols are certainly more of a problem than “carbon” [by which the illiterati mean carbon dioxide] – as is just about everything else. But as usual, it is speculation. Also as usual, empirical evidence is in short supply [it doesn’t seem to occur to them that if particulates settle on the Arctic/Antarctic ground and change the albedo, the very next dusting of snow eliminates the problem]. Since humans have an innate need to believe in an approaching apocalypse, aerosols can easily take the place of the debunked former demon, CO2.

    The fly in the ointment is the plain fact that most aerosol pollution comes from developing countries like China, India, Russia, Brazil, and a hundred smaller countries. They desperately want to blame the West for any possible thing they can, because if we accept their blame, they can extract $billions to $trillions from us for their own pollution emissions.

    But no one ever paid us to clean up our act. We did it at our own expense, with no outside assistance. There is absolutely no reason that they can not do the same thing.

    The world has one atmosphere, and those countries that continue to pour their soot into it have the responsibility to take the necessary steps to stop it.

    The fact that they continue their polluting of the atmosphere with soot emissions shows that their pretended concern over the issue is nothing but lip service, because they continue dirtying our shared atmosphere with their particulate emissions.

    If the UN was not so thoroughly corrupt, it would demand that every country must take responsibility for what it is doing to our atmosphere.

  62. “Personally, I think it’s a new crop of student interns being hired for this quarter / semester somewhere. If you were a Sorros or similar funding such an operation, funding ‘interns’ would be an expected way to do it.”

    ha….one of the denialist heroes is a conspiracy theorist too. This figures.

  63. carrot eater –

    Henk’s vindication is for exactly what he complained about and was forced to resign over. NOT that the science was wrong (specifically regarding AGW – wherein the issue of opinion resides) but over the issue of whether or not the IPCC was doing terribly sloppy science. There is ABSOLUTELY no issue of opinion regarding that. The science has been demonstrated in spades to have been done in a terribly sloppy manner not even remotely supporting the certainty of the conclusions and in many cases simply not supporting the conclusions at all.

    That’s that the vindication is.

  64. Quote: Alan the Brit (02:30:52) :

    “A true hero if ever there was one! Now we can see how it all works in every western country there is,

    Move out the bad no men & women, &
    Install the good yes men & women!”

    Yes, Alan, that’s exactly how it works!

    That is how “Consensus Science” works.

    That is how the flow of money controls science.

    That is how politicians use science for propaganda.

    That is why 178 scientists agreed and co-authored a paper
    [Q.R. Ahmad et al, Physical Review Lett. 89 (2002) 011301]
    that reaffirms the politician’s false claims:

    a.) Solar Neutrinos Oscillate Away!
    b.) Solar Neutrino Puzzle is Solved!
    c.) Sun Is Giant Ball Of Hydrogen
    d.) Hydrogen-fusion Heats Sun
    e.) Hydrogen-fusion Is Steady
    f.) Only CO2 Changes Climate

    See! It’s easy. Let politicians control CO2 emissions, and politicians will save planet Earth from climate change.

    Henk Tennekes refused to go along with the ploiticians’ plan. Henk Tennekes was removed. Now get in line or Big Brother will remove you, too.

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Emeritus Professor of
    Nuclear & Space Sciences

  65. Dave F (23:28:47) :

    It would be good to have a summary of what’s left of the science behind global warming. You know, now that homeless people in DC are being given copies of AR4 to burn and keep themselves warm under 30+ inches of snow…

    “Washington D.C. finally has a real shovel ready project!” (From a recent editorial in the Denver Post).

  66. John Hooper (04:46:02) :

    “But I haven’t noticed anyone actually debunk the theory.”

    Its impossible to debunk a moving target.

    Global Cooling….global warming…..Climate Change …..No statistically significant warming since 1995……..soot…..Methane…..cold …..warm….more ice….less ice ….snow moving south….snow moving north ….rotten snow ….rotten ice …..Ice Bears ……penguins …..clouds …not clouds….CO2…. Methane …. blablabla

    Its just a mess, thats what it is.

  67. Oliver manuel,

    Perhaps your fame and diligence could help rehabilitate a Climate skeptic closer to home. Dr. ference Miskolczi was forced to resign from you own NASA for cpublishing ,and tryin got publsih othe rpapers htat questioned the world of Astronomer James hansen, protoge of Mr. Albert Gore.

    Mr. Miskolczi’s work combines analysis of empirical data from many NASA satellites to develop a modified theory of GHG warming. He summarized it under the title of a “Saturated State of GHG” .

    His advances in the mathematical solution of models of planentary atmospheres and radiation theory alone merits his resurrection, from the damnation of Gavin Schmidt, ReichsPropagandaMinister, for James Hansen and his cohorts.

  68. Merrick, some would argue, on this very thread, that the AGW ‘hypothesis’ has been falsified by the apparent sloppiness of some of the science on which it relies. Would you say that is correct?

  69. A significant trend in Western Civilization —
    “the bigger the population gets the more control government assumes”

    Who’s to blame? We are! (You, Me, and Everbody Else!)

    Not saying we “must” reduce population. Saying that if citizens don’t want to be more and more restricted, and don’t want the government to assume more control over their lives, they’re going to have to initiate more checks and balances of their own.

    Can some principles and practices from the old “Guild” system be employed in some areas? Seems possible. The Sciences for example are numerous collections of professionals who are quite capable of managing a lot of their own affairs. Was Henk Tennekes a respected member of his field? Was his field respected within the family of major Sciences?

    If the answer to these two questions was, “Yes!”, then Henk Tennekes should have been supported in his position, and should not have been alone in his condemnation of those he claimed were doing wrong.

    If nothing is done, the government assumes more and more control. Seems the Sciences and the Fields of the Sciences need to take action and assume control and responsibility for their own professions. Otherwise, they need to go buy themselves a beer and have a good cry over their poor miserable plight.

  70. Pardonnez moi, S’il vous plait.

    Oliver Manuel,

    Perhaps your fame and diligence could help rehabilitate a Climate Skeptic closer to home. Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi was forced to resign from you own NASA, for publishing, and trying to publish other scientific papers. Those scientific paper submissions questioned the world of Astronomer James Hansen, protégé of Mr. Albert Gore. Dr. Hansen’s duties include Chief Database Administrator for world historical weather reports; and Climate Scientist, neither of which are covered in his scientific curriculum vitae.

    Mr. Miskolczi’s work combines analysis of empirical data from many NASA satellites to develop a modified theory of GHG warming. He summarized it under the title of a “Saturated State of GHG” . He was forced to publish in overseas Journals, after having been shut off from continued publication in Americans scientific journals by order of NASA superiors.

    His advances in the mathematical solution of models of planetary atmospheres and radiation theory alone merits his resurrection. His measures of planetary energy emission, wavelength by wavelength, are worthy of recognition involving as the do the ONLY climate versus weather satellite ever launched. That is NASA’s ERBE satellite. His work provides a theoretical foundation for the seminal paper of Lindzen and Choi that completely discredits the contained, reflected warming, as ERBE reveals the energy is getting back out to Space. Dr. Miskolczi deserves resurrection from the damnation of Gavin Schmidt, ReichsPropagandaMinister, for James Hansen and his cohorts.

  71. Henry Pool (07:45:22) :
    “””
    I am totally puzzled as to why I get a video advertising the Church of Scientology??
    I thought I was going to get a translation of the article/
    “””
    Henry – your computer must have a virus. I got the article just fine.

  72. Quote: Stas Peterson (08:14:54) :

    “Oliver Manuel,

    Perhaps your fame and diligence could help rehabilitate a Climate skeptic closer to home. Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi was forced to resign from you own NASA for publishing, and tryin to get published other papers that questioned the world of Astronomer James Hansen, protoge of Mr. Albert Gore.”

    I would be happy to work with Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi if he contacts me.

    I sometimes published papers overseas:

    1. “The Sun is a plasma diffuser that sorts atoms by mass,”
    Physics of Atomic Nuclei 69 (2006) 1847-1856
    Yadernaya Fizika 69 (Nov 2006) number 11
    http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609509

    2. “Composition of the solar interior: Information from isotope ratios,”
    European Space Agency SP-517 (editor: Huguette Lacoste, 2003) 345-348
    http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0410717

    3. “Nuclear systematics: III. The source of solar luminosity”,
    Journal of Radioanalytical Nuclear Chemistry 252 (2002) 3-7

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel

  73. davidmhoffer (19:54:42) :
    Glad to see the article. Not so glad to see the descriptor “denier”. Its been thrown around so much that people have seemingly forgotten its origin and the terrible smear that it was intended to be on skeptics. Its use should be resisted as much as the lies it was intended to shield.

    I’m reminded how many modern-day pagans have embraced the label of “witch”. Sometimes it’s a good thing to take that label and turn it into a good thing.

    Another example: gays and lesbians embracing the slur “queer”, in the same manner.

    While the “Holocaust denier” label is rightfully denigrated, I’m thinking that “AGW denier”, if embraced, could be a label to wear with pride. IOW, take their thinking and stick it in their face.

  74. When IPCC says that sea level will rise fifty centimeters in a hundred years, it’s an exaggeration, but I’ll let them get away with it. If Al Gore makes six meters of it, then I’ll swear loudly. If Rob van Dorland of KNMI then smirks and says that Gore was perhaps ”exaggerating a little“, then I’ll swear even more loudly. You’re fooling us! ”
    http://www.probeinternational.org/files/UKVersieHenkTennekes.pdf

    That, to me, really gets at the heart of the matter… and the heart of my frustration with the IPCC and RC crowd. As I said elsewhere recently, they come after anything skeptical like spider monkeys… but when it comes to junk science and wild exaggerations that are pro-AGW these supposed men of science say nothing

  75. Sravana (09:34:49) :
    While the “Holocaust denier” label is rightfully denigrated, I’m thinking that “AGW denier”, if embraced, could be a label to wear with pride. IOW, take their thinking and stick it in their face.

    I think we should start referring to AGW crowd as “believers”

    Nothing quite like the implication that their views are ultimately articles of faith, when in their minds it’s hard science

    I use the term orthodox/orthodoxy to describe the alleged “consensus” AGW view for the same reason

  76. Mark,

    Yes, some certainly would say that the sloppy science falsifies the AGW theory. I wouldn’t. As a scientist I don’t believe that a poorly done experiment or set of experiments can prove or disprove anything. I certainly believe, and think quite justifiably, that the solid refutation of the data used to back the wildest claims of IPCC projections undermines those projections quite effectively. I also believe that the latest (and for that matter long-standing) revelations also strongly argue that the simple “increased CO2 equals increased global temperature” combined with the ridiculously high sensitivity values claimed by the IPCC are not reasonalby supportable. But to extrapolate that to a statement that all AGW from all sources at all sensitivities is conclusively disproved by the sloppy methods of the IPCC? No. I can’t go that far.

  77. E.M.Smith (02:14:06) :

    David Jones (20:22:29) : I’ve noticed on the last couple of threads that the trolls seem to have become tad strident of late, must of been something they read. Kinda reminds me of group of pekingese yapping in all their diminutive fury.

    Yup, and with a new crop of pseudonyms too.

    Imo, the trolls, enc., don’t seem to realize that they are being studied – either because they apparently don’t believe that anyone can be objective about what goes on in reality, which they deny anyway; or else because they don’t care – perhaps because they have put all their faith or “being” into “Post Normal Science” = Dominating by Any Means Necessary, and possibly think they need to “win” as a mere matter of survival – for example, on the explanatory model hypothesizing that they are simply Parasites in need of controlling the Producers, or, say, on the model which otherwise puts their hominid kind as quite possibly an example of being an evolutionary “dead end” or “lower form”, regardless – such as the Neanderthals, who lost out for whatever reason.

    Of course, we [imperfect] rationals, who also know the utility of the Scientific Method, could be the “dead end”, too, or the “enslaved” if we do not out perform them in an important way.

    But, me, I’m sticking with the Scientific Method and my inherent Rationality and its given right to self-defense, then we’ll see what happens.

  78. Sravana;
    While the “Holocaust denier” label is rightfully denigrated, I’m thinking that “AGW denier”, if embraced, could be a label to wear with pride. IOW, take their thinking and stick it in their face>

    While I understand the sentiment, the tactic was odious in the extreme. It might feel good right now to reclaim it and stick it in their face, but it cheapens the memory of a history that mankind has repeated too often for lack of remembrance, and it smacks of the same tactic that “they” used against “us”. I can no more countenance the use of such a term against them than I can the falsification of data to disprove their claims.

  79. VS (04:12:42) :

    VS, could you please expand on why and where you think this article was “horribly” translated, and in which way this translation impacts the gist and/or content of the article.

    I’ve read both the original article in Dutch and the English translation (albeit briefly), but it seems, at first glance, to be fairly accurate. Perhaps I’ve missed something. Please enlighten me.

  80. Well, I finally got to read the article,
    I don’t know where that virus came from
    It must have been deliberately dropped by someone before me who visited this site?
    Is it not amazing to see how long this CO2 scam has been going on, for like 20 years?
    It did not take me more than 2 months of investigations in the evenings to figure out that nobody has the scientific proof that would show to me that the net effect of CO2 is warming (at between 200-500 ppm)

  81. Boris (06:51:43) :

    “Personally, I think it’s a new crop of student interns being hired for this quarter / semester somewhere. If you were a Sorros or similar funding such an operation, funding ‘interns’ would be an expected way to do it.”

    ha….one of the denialist heroes is a conspiracy theorist too. This figures.

    I will explain Boris. It’s something that I’ve noticed advocates of CAGW don’t have. It called a sense of humour

    DaveE.

  82. Bah Humbug:

    The article you link to does not say the ocean levels have declined, it says the rate of increase has declined from around 3 mm/yr rise to a “rate of 1.5mm/yr since 2005”. The oceans are still rising but at a slower rate in the last 5 years.

    Shouldn’t ocean levels actually decline a bit if ocean heat content is declining?

  83. George Taylor, former Oregon state Meteorologist, could have an equivalent article written about him, since the Oregon Governor forced Taylor out of his position at Oregon State University, but I am not holding my breath waiting for The Oregonian to write it.

  84. Bah humbug,

    The NOAA oceans observation website says: “However, there is strong observational evidence for a significant eustatic contribution” of order 1 mm/yr”.

    That would be compatible with no increase in thermal expansion in the oceans, which would be compatible no increase in OHC for the last 5 years.

  85. “…the scaremongers never mention Arrenhius’ 1906 paper, in which he drastically reduced his sensitivity number to 1.6°C”

    Sure, he was in bed with the rapidly growing Standard Oil by then!

    Seriously, I cannot find a reference to the Arrenhius 1.6*C revision other than comments on various blogs. Do you have one? It would be a nice little needle.

  86. red432 (09:32:02) — Henry Pool (07:45:22) : I am totally puzzled as to why I get a video advertising the Church of Scientology??

    I got the Scientology vid here in Australia, too; and was not so much puzzled as peeved.

  87. O/T but having just followed a link to Realclimate, I note that more sceptics now seem to get posts that actually stay up but get comments from our friend Gavin (My he seems to have a lot of time on his hands).

    Here is one such comment from him..
    “Instead, it simply adds to the poisonous personalized atmosphere in the debate that is the largest stumbling block to actual discussions of science and solutions. – gavin” .

    The “poisonous personalized atmosphere” made me wonder what Steve M would have to say about that comment. I am sure Lord Monckton would smile if he saw it because the followers of the site sure do seem to be “poisonous and personalized” about him!

  88. RJ (14:32:08) :

    It’s in Wikipedia, so it must be right. ;)

    Arrhenius estimated that halving of CO2 would decrease temperatures by 4 – 5 °C (Celsius) and a doubling of CO2 would cause a temperature rise of 5 – 6 °C[4]. In his 1906 publication, Arrhenius adjusted the value downwards to 1.6 °C (including water vapour feedback: 2.1 °C). Recent (2007) estimates from IPCC say this value (the Climate sensitivity) is likely to be between 2 and 4.5 °C. Arrhenius expected CO2 levels to rise at a rate given by emissions in his time. Since then, industrial carbon dioxide levels have risen at a much faster rate: Arrhenius expected CO2 doubling to take about 3000 years; it is now estimated in most scenarios to take about a century.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius

    Although, it’s interesting that the 1.6 doesn’t have a citation.

  89. red432 (09:32:02) — Henry Pool (07:45:22) : I am totally puzzled as to why I get a video advertising the Church of Scientology??

    Madison Avenue strikes (successfully) again. Checked the source code and discovered the hyperlink to the translation is the word “here”.
    I missed that, read on, and blindly clicked the video box following — which is a legitimate ad:

    A translation into English of De Telegraaf’s vindication appears here. (my bolding.)
    Translation by: Richard Sumner (UK) (Followed by the Scientology ad.)

  90. Henry @ John M and RJ
    “Arrhenius estimated that halving of CO2 would decrease temperatures by 4 – 5 °C (Celsius) and a doubling of CO2 would cause a temperature rise of 5 – 6 °C[4]. In his 1906 publication, Arrhenius adjusted the value downwards to 1.6 °C (including water vapour feedback: 2.1 °C). Recent (2007) estimates from IPCC say this value (the Climate sensitivity) is likely to be between 2 and 4.5 °C.”
    Interesting. Would like to know:
    What experiments did he do to get to this conclusion?
    Why does the IPCC come with “estimates” – why did nobody do any experiments?

  91. If NIPCC holds its next conference in a Denny’s parking lot, we could call ourselves Denny-ers. :-)

  92. Oliver K. Manuel (09:32:52) :

    “I would be happy to work with Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi if he contacts me.”

    OK I’ll tell him.

Comments are closed.