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.
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)
E.M.Smith (02:14:06)
Cognitive infiltration ?
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.
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.
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.
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
theoryhypothesis 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.
“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.
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.
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
“Washington D.C. finally has a real shovel ready project!” (From a recent editorial in the Denver Post).
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/
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.
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.
Does anyone have a contact for Henk Tennekes? email, tel or address.
Thanks
email to: philip.foster17@ntlworld.com
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?
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.
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.
Oliver K. Manuel (07:03:09) :
Follow the money trail!
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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.