The intro reads: Plagued by reports of sloppy work, falsifications and exaggerations, climate research is facing a crisis of confidence. How reliable are the predictions about global warming and its consequences? And would it really be the end of the world if temperatures rose by more than the much-quoted limit of two degrees Celsius?
This series features Steve McIntyre prominently, and well worth the read. See the series links below:
- Part 1: A Superstorm for Global Warming Research
- Part 2: Politically Charged Science
- Part 3: A Climate Rebel Takes on the Establishment
- Part 4: The Smoking Gun of Climatology
- Part 5: The Reality of Rising Sea Levels
- Part 6: The Myth of the Monster Storm
- Part 7: Climate Change’s Winners and Losers
- Part 8: The Invention of the Two-Degree Target
James Delingpole quips in the Telegraph:When the Germans give up on AGW you really do know it’s all over…
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
johnnythelowery (20:04:57) : “My German is a bit spotty, but, let me summarize: Eein AGW Dunkoff Science Fraudenscheitz CRU fahrt un Frakenstein Jones. Schnitzel Mann mat un Convalute Data to Stick Hockey for Gore under table transact Billion Kroner/Deutsch with Carbon Credit sgeem. Attension Max -1.0 c with Thermometer +/- .5 F acurate to Flugshaft Bomb Pattern WWI.”
Robustlich!
Should be “dumkopf”… 😉
johnnythelowery (20:04:57)
Hi Johnny, was lol about your summary, greetings from Berlin!
juanslayton (20:34:08) : Don’t wonder! The Spiegel journalists are true believers of the AGW course (so my source says), the sensation is, that they wrote something at all about climategate, and IPCCgate! Wonder who kicked their behind, probably the readers, who send them loads of E-mails, mocking their ludicrous, regularly very bad informed, articles about the item.
They are still holding on to all the old cornerstones: Sea ice and glaciers are melting, CO2 is a potent greenhouse gas, the computer- models are allright, it’s just a little adjustment needed concerning clouds.
You should also read the response of Prof. Stefan Rahmstorf to the “Spiegel” article here: http://www.wissenslogs.de/wblogs/blog/klimalounge/medien-check/2010-04-01/klimaforscher-bashing-beim-spiegel .
I try to translate only the last para.:
“The “Spiegel” article is not a case of science but a case of policy. This year is the year of decision about the future of the German climate policy: In fall the government wants to declare the aims of the policy of energy. The essential will be: Shall we see an enduring U-turn to green energies or not?
In the global context the question is: can we limit the global warming at two deg. as it’s demanded by “Copenhagen Accord” or will this chance passing by? The power struggle about this is in full swing.
A U-turn in energy is to avoided in generating doubts of it’s urgency. So the scandal stories about climate research are made up and this demonstrates that there are no good and fair minded arguments against a definitive climate policy. ”
Prof. Rahmstorf is a scientist not a politician we should remember!!
I had read this yesterday. As a relative newcomer to the “climate wars”, what impressed me the most about this article was the recurring theme of “uncertainties” in the current state of the art (and artifice?!) of “climate science” – which, to the best of my knowledge, has been conspicuously absent in most MSM coverage. If I may borrow from Martha Stewart … “This is a good thing.”
The cat’s out of the bag. AGW Alarmists/believers have it tough now.
It just goes to show:
Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future. — Niels Bohr, Danish physicist (1885 – 1962)
Prediction is very hard, especially about the future – Yogi Berra and/or Casey Stengel
Too funny. Russia & Canada are going to be so much warmer, according to Der Spiegel;- Germany too! They just can’t resist giving bad advice to politicians. The author is the politicians’ little friend, giving such helpful wrong advice that’s going to cost people large sums when they’re not ready for cold weather. It’s really great that they continue to make unlikely predictions that people will notice when they don’t come true. I’d give the article an award… in the best comedy category.
Hi Just the Facts
No “reporters” don’t do research anymore. This was written by Scott Adams “Reporter’s are faced with the daily choice of painstakingly researching stories or writing whatever people tell them. Both approaches pay the same”.
I was amused when I first read it not any more. The larger proportion of journalists are employed in the public relations companies. They produce canned video and text material. The journalist in the MSM picks which they will use without much thought. The MSM “news” is about entertainment to sell a product little else. Here in OZ we have an ABC (government funded) journos in it seem to pick those that fit the their ideology instead. For instance there is a “science” journalist with them who confidently stated the sea level would rise 100 metres in the near future. Did not raise an eyebrow he is still accepted as credible. My stance these days is any science on the MSM is most likely incorrect.
This article is like the curate’s egg; good in parts (but also bad in parts).
“Despite the enormous uncertainties, there is agreement on at least one issue: Global warming can no longer be stopped.” What agreement?
@dh7fb (23:09)
He is an deep ideologist, as scientist with political missionary zeal.
“Tor Hansson (21:07:28) :
The most schizophrenic article I have read in a long time.”
Yeah. Only Der Spiegel can deliver at this level of shizoidness.
Der Focus, the conservative competition, whipped up an article about ClimateGate in January i think, now Der Spiegel had to deliver *something* and they tried their best to bend the story backward in part 7 – “And in only 20 years, snow could become a thing of the past in Germany.”
Oh my. It’s a Frankenstein article.
And Rahmstorf doesn’t disappoint in his answer at
http://www.wissenslogs.de/wblogs/blog/klimalounge/medien-check/2010-04-01/klimaforscher-bashing-beim-spiegel
Der Spiegel’s attempt at reporting the facts is of course too much of a deviation from the party line for Rahmstorf, and his writeup is of a style that is comparable to press releases from Berlin from 70 years ago. I leave it at that.
Es bleiben im Raum: Keitel, Jodl, Krebs und. Burgdorf.
“Unfortunately, the computer simulations that predict the climate of the future are still too imprecise to be able to draw reliable conclusions for each individual country or region.”
This is just one of dozens of references to models “predicting” (poorly or otherwise) the future. For heaven’s sake – to believe that one can create a Super Machine that can tell the future is utter madness. As everyone reading this blog knows by now – the models “project,” not “predict,”and when they “project,” they simply “project” whatever they are told to “project” by the programmers with all their assumptions, prejudices and vested interests. Propaganda tools.
Have to say, I hated the article – it was written by an imbecile.
Ref: Doug in Seattle (19:25:20)
I fully accept that models are not yet very accurate, particularly when it comes to precipitation:
http://www.climatedata.info/Precipitation/Precipitation/global.html
On the other hand a lot of our infrastructure is based on the false premise that a statistical analysis of the past can be a reliable guide to future.
Forecasts based on model projections have of course been pushed beyond the limits of credibility but I believe that climate modelling, which takes full account of natural and anthropogenic warming, is worth pursuing.
dh7fb
I wrote a general analysis of RAHMSTORF’S screed in ENGLISH.
Others can click on the pgosselin just above to read it.
KBK (21:38:42) :
“It will become more arid, however, in many subtropical regions. Industrialized nations, which bear the greatest culpability for global warming, will be most heavily affected.”
It was pretty even-handed until page 7. Then it became apparent that even though the entire foundation has vanished, the authors believe the house is still standing.
KBK your observation is spot on. Despite the fact that the reporters are reporting that there is no evidence that industrialised nations are responsible for global warming, they, or their publisher, are still “believers”. Astonishing.
The Germans invented most of the chemical industry. If they wanted to, they could cool the Earth.
Of course the democratic era is now over. Public opinion – who needs it? Certainly not the EUrocrats. Across Europe the EU is a hated organisation; referendums are dead; the ‘plebs’ are ignored:- the EU, and ‘anti-global warming’ policies, proceed apace. In the final end, to misquote Dylan, I fear that we will lose the war after winning every battle.
jorgekafkazar (22:24:50) :
juanslayton (19:57:02) : ” ‘the prediction that all Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 — which was the result of a simple transposition of numbers’
“Come again?”
The original source said it was 2350.
cheers David
We have come full circle. Interesting to see that the president of the German Academy of Science and Engineering state that ‘scientists should never be wedded to their theories’. Very interesting (but not stupid)…….. compare the famous Max Planck quote ‘a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing it opponents and making them see the light, but rather because it opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it’. Ah yes, a ‘new scientific truth’ – which is what the climate change juggernaut was hell bent in the fast lane to convince the world – that their models (with all their uncertainties) were the new scientific truth, and rather then wait until ‘death do us part’ of the non-believers, to make their model predictions the new ‘truth’. Sounds horribly how the Nazis (no reflection on Germans, just Nazis) were the ones who wished to rapidly convince the world that the scientific proof of Darwinism ( the survival of the fitness) meant that inferior phenotypes should be eliminated from the breeding population. Darwin didn’t mean that and nor should the true believers of climate change holocaust predictions mock (belittle, what-have-you) that people who challenge their views be cast aside as inferior cretins. Their conclusions/beliefs should be challenged in a rigorous objective manner and not given the power of ‘scientific proof’. To claim that anyone who dares challenges is dangerous is simply leading the human race into another nightmare of Nazi and Orwellian proportions (OK, so his predictions have not fully come to past, but his dire warnings to mankind still stand).
Reply: Ok this little wandering into Godwin territory stops now. No discussion of Nazis, the Holocaust, or Eugenics. ~ ctm
I think Steve Mc has come up with a huge one as well apparently could be more damaging for UEA than climategate
http://climateaudit.org/2010/04/02/keith-should-say/#more-10626
@johnnythelowery (20:04:57) :
—————————————————————
My German is a bit spotty
—————————————————————
German teaching tape: “Die Sauerkraut ist in mein Lederhosen”
The Curate’s egg analogy is a good one for this article, but the more closely one reads it, the more the good parts of the egg shrink. Why can’t journalists at least do a little research on their sources to check veracity? It’s not so very difficult to get accurate information on Polar ice and glacial behaviour. I guess that growing up in a culture where Green mythology is given credence must make it difficult for German journalists see past the nonsense that has been extant since long before their birth.
ctm
Agreed. Replace any reference to the N word to ‘Orwellian’ and reset the online discussion of this topic to less than 1.