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)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
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)
Boris (06:51:43) :
I will explain Boris. It’s something that I’ve noticed advocates of CAGW don’t have. It called a sense of humour
DaveE.
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?
Merrick, I agree with your position entirely. Thanks.
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.
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.
“…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.
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.
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!
RJ (14:32:08) :
It’s in Wikipedia, so it must be right. 😉
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius
Although, it’s interesting that the 1.6 doesn’t have a citation.
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.)
Henry @ur momisugly 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?
If NIPCC holds its next conference in a Denny’s parking lot, we could call ourselves Denny-ers. 🙂
Here is a nice photo of a bar-tailed godwit (third down). http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/09/16/f-birds-migration.html
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.