Uh oh, somebody in Germany in a position to influence others in the Green movement has started thinking for himself, shrugging off suggestions from a climate scientist that “its all in his head”.
Pierre Gosselin reports about a story by lefty journalist Harald Martenstein of Die Zeit:
“I was ready to open my home to the Schröders as soon as they would no longer be able to take the 60°C heat in the shade. But instead it got colder and colder. At Uckermark in the wintertime it was -20°C for weeks.”
Martenstein also noticed that Britain had endured its coldest winter in 30 years, Florida got covered by icicles, and the cold seemed to be spreading everywhere. So he pleaded that people should emit more CO2 – so that he could stay warm.
His plea, however, prompted an invitation from a “scientist at a very nice climate institute“:
He showed me tables and graphs that clearly depicted it was getting warmer. He believed that I was just a victim of my own subjective imagination. Memory can fool you. One thinks that during childhood it was warm from May to September, but in reality its was warm only 3 days, and it is those 3 days that one remembers intensively. The tables from climate scientists, on the other hand, do not lie.”
Martenstein then recounts the past winter and how it seemed to him as being the longest and hardest he could remember, but telling himself that it was probably just his warped subjectivity acting up again. He writes:
But suddenly I read in the paper that a number of climate scientists had changed their minds. Now they were saying it is not going to get warmer, but colder, at least in Europe. Whatever happened to the tables I now ask myself.”
This kind of science would never fly in biology or physics, Martenstein writes. ”But with climate science it seems they are allowed to get away with everything.”
Read it all here:
Mother Of German Green Weeklies, Die Zeit, Shocks Readers…Now Casts Doubt On Global Warming!
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Stan W. says:
April 22, 2013 at 7:03 pm
@werner – are you aware that in the last 5 yrs 10 months RSS has an upward trend of 0.18 C/decade?
that’s it’s 0.26 C/decade over the last 5 yrs 4 months?
Stan W. says:
April 22, 2013 at 6:59 pm
over any small interval
What you said about RSS is due to the fact that 2008 had a strong La Nina and over a very short interval like 6 years, a strong La Nina at the start has a huge influence.
But what time interval do you consider long enough to be significant? You talk about 5 years and 4 or 10 months as if that had some significance, but 17 years is a “small interval” that is not even worth considering?
Stan W. says:
April 22, 2013 at 7:06 pm
so you don’t have an answer to why temperatures haven’t fallen back after that largest el nino on record? that’s telling
On three data sets, the slope is negative since August 1997, or for 15 years and 8 months. I will admit the obvious that these points are very well cherry picked. However the significance for me is that I am even able to cherry pick points for a period of over 15 years where the slope is negative. From quotes by others, Trenberth and Jones are not happy that I am even able to do this.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997.58/plot/rss/from:1997.58/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.58/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.58/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.58/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1997.58/trend
(P.S. I will not be available for the next 15 hours, but keep the questions coming.)
Werner, you are very welcome. You are still batting 1.000.
Werner, Courtney, et. al. 711 – opponents, zip (except, they are still in the ballpark, enjoying what little ATTENTION they are getting from the few fans left sitting in the stands).
@ur momisugly Stan W. and @ur momisugly Phil.
Do either of you currently, or have you previously, or do you hope or expect to, receive any financial advantage at all from the application of policy derived from an acceptance of AGW as requiring such, or from investment or business effected by such, or from association with any organization (s) that in part or whole are or could be advantaged by such a perception?
Or is anyone you are closely associated with likely to benefit in the manner described above?
Lies or evasion may prove very unwise . This will be a matter of record.
Werner Brozek:
I am enjoying this. The floor is beginning to shine from the polishing it is getting as a result of your wiping it with the troll.
I write to help onlookers understand how hard you are smashing the troll across the floor by providing a reminder and an observation.
The troll claims the cessation of warming over the last 16 years is not sufficient time to mean anything.
Global temperature has been rising from the LIA for ~300 years but the rise has not been constant.
Global temperature has been calculated from surface measurements since ~1880. That record shows global temperature
fell from ~1880 to ~1910
rose from ~1910 to ~1940
fell from ~1940 to ~1970.
rose from ~1970 to ~2000
has not risen since.
The rate of rise was the same for the two warming periods (n.b. one before 1940 and the other after 1940) but more than 80% of human greenhouse gas emissions were after 1940. There has been no warming for the most recent 16 years which is more than half of each of the two warming periods.
Be assured that if the troll reverts to dirty tricks I will again stomp on him/her/them/it.
As for now, I am enjoying the show. Thankyou, Werner.
Richard
werner:
“I will admit the obvious that these points are very well cherry picked.”
finally!
now, please, stop making assertions based on unscientific methods.
@JC — do you have a financial stake in a sceptical view of anthropogenic global warming?
is someone paying you to counter the consensus view? if so, who?
please be honest, since you are anonymous.
werner:
“But what time interval do you consider long enough to be significant? You talk about 5 years and 4 or 10 months as if that had some significance, but 17 years is a “small interval” that is not even worth considering?”
so then you agree that the surface has warmed up sharply in the last 5-6 years, even by the RSS data, despite the occurrence of two La Ninas?
Stan W.,
The ‘surface’ is not the globe, is it? You have to take UHI into account when looking at land data.
Globally, RSS data does not show that “the surface has warmed sharply”.
@Stan W. says:
April 23, 2013 at 10:56 am
“@JC — do you have a financial stake in a sceptical view of anthropogenic global warming?
is someone paying you to counter the consensus view? if so, who?
please be honest, since you are anonymous.”
——————————————————————————————————————-
Thank you for responding, even if inadequately, which was not unexpected.
A very simple question evaded. This in itself is useful, being obliquely to the point of the implications of the question.
I suspect you think you are displaying verve, or something that sets you a-quiver which you translate as that, by responding as you did, but if so transmitting this to others will not be successfully achieved by what comes across as the pose of a miscreant boy, known to be of poor stock and devious character, caught in the act of some offense to the neighborhood.
You apparently cannot comprehend that I expressed no opinion on AGW, and that, rather my interest is exclusively YOU in this query and exchange. It is telling that you automatically react to this query as being a threat, saying as it does that you desire your position to be secret, and that to have it revealed will show you in a compromising light.
I readily admit I have a “financial stake” in what you describe as a sceptical view of AGW, in the same way that every human not getting or seeking benefit from its affirmation has – the ability to myself exist in a viable manner, and to not live in a world torn asunder by adherence to this, resulting in wide-scale deaths and relentless poverty, with all the attendant risk of disintegration leading to wars and general barbarism – but not any more than that.
So no, as you clumsily repeat yourself in what you would, I think, like to be seen as evidence of substance in your response but which communicates the exact opposite, no -one (or no organization, which you did not have the wit to include) is paying me to counter anything, even a mythical consensus.
I hadn’t realized that I was dealing with an internationally known personage. Stan W. Are you a DJ? A rap artist? Royalty? It doesn’t ring any bells for me I’m afraid and to be honest (as requested) I am not immediately impressed with a sense of style or pizazz. Or dignity. Or gravitas. Nothing really. New agent needed perhaps? A makeover? Whatever product line you are part of will surely – if that line has any current viability at all – give guidance as to what might resonate. Respectfully, you need a “lift”, a refresh.
But this is not about your personal marketing issues – if they don’t touch on the issue at hand: Stan W.? Appealing to what market segment of the AGW fraternity? – it is about you and your role here at WUWT.
Broadly, your level of culpability. In itself, (dis)honesty and (lack of) intellectual function are not what I am interested in here, these being displayed elsewhere – although you do here show a level of both that is consistent with previous contributions and is damning. I am seeking to establish direct links – or otherwise of course – to the primaevally venal as motivation for you to bring to bear those attributes.
So please answer the question.
Where is that other one – Phil.? PHIL!
Please answer the question. It is really just a survey at this point – I assure you – and any future issues relating to accountability do not require the information now, when required this can be established independently, which you must surely be aware of.
Stan W. says:
April 23, 2013 at 10:54 am
werner:
“I will admit the obvious that these points are very well cherry picked.”
finally!
now, please, stop making assertions based on unscientific methods.
Was your 5 years and 4 months not cherry picked? Let us be honest and admit we both cherry picked. But if you cherry pick a small interval of under 6 years, the error bars are huge, so the conclusions are not very scientific. When going over 15 years like I did, my error bars are 1.239/0.227 = 5.5 times smaller.
For the last 5 years and 4 months according to http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php
we get this slope and error bars for RSS:
0.251 ±1.239 °C/decade (2σ)
This translates to a range of +1.49 to -0.988. So roughly, we can only be about 60% certain that it is really warming over this period. By convention, anything under 95% is not significant in climate science.
For the last 15 years and 8 months we get this slope and error bars for RSS:
-0.039 ±0.227 °C/decade (2σ) This translates to a range of +0.188 to -0.266. So despite the cherry picked time, it can be seen that the upper limit of 0.188 is still below the slope value of 0.251 for your very short time.
(P.S. Thank you Richard!)
Stan W. says:
April 23, 2013 at 10:58 am
so then you agree that the surface has warmed up sharply in the last 5-6 years, even by the RSS data, despite the occurrence of two La Ninas?
Yes, but with huge error bars as shown above. So there is still a 40% chance that cooling occurred on RSS during the last 5 years and 4 months.
@werner — of course my interval was cherry picked.
it’s my way of showing you that two can play that game — cherry picking can give you any answer you want, depending on how you slice and dice the time intervals.
that’s why it’s considered unscientific, yet you still seem to do it a lot.
@dbstealey — how do you know the RSS measurements are accurate?
lately it differs significantly from UAH, which has had its own problems in the past.
and both differ from surface datasets.
@JC — my interest is good science, for which no one pays me a cent.
though i realize people like you like to insinuate otherwise, as a substitute for actual scientific arguments.
Egregious troll posting as Stan W.:
Your post at April 23, 2013 at 2:47 pm says
You fool nobody with that because you have studiously ignored each and every scientific argument in
the thread.
And nobody doubts that you are not payed anything for “good science” because you have shown no understanding of what that is. The question you are evading is whether you are being payed to troll with your attacks on science.
Personally, I don’t think you are a payed troll. I think you are a deluded cultist acting in desperate defence of your cult as reality refutes your cherished beliefs.
Richard
Friends:
The egregious troll is wriggling by pretending the MSU data are not reliable but the surface data sets are.
I remind that one of the previous wriggles of the troll was to ignore my post at April 20, 2013 at 3:32 pm
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/19/the-unraveling-of-global-warming-is-accelerating/#comment-1281726
which said to the troll
Click on the link and see if you can understand why the troll has ignored it.
Richard
If global warming is unraveling, shouldn’t the evidence be in new journal articles or major science organizations revising their positions? Rather than declarations by a “lefty journalist”?
jc says:
April 22, 2013 at 11:00 pm
@ur momisugly Stan W. and @ur momisugly Phil.
Do either of you currently, or have you previously, or do you hope or expect to, receive any financial advantage at all from the application of policy derived from an acceptance of AGW as requiring such, or from investment or business effected by such, or from association with any organization (s) that in part or whole are or could be advantaged by such a perception?
Or is anyone you are closely associated with likely to benefit in the manner described above?
Lies or evasion may prove very unwise . This will be a matter of record.
Forgive me but I’m disinclined to answer such a survey conducted by an anonymous poster, particularly one with such a threatening tone which is only addressed to two posters! Perhaps you should do a wider survey covering every poster here?
fredd:
You pose a good question in your post at April 23, 2013 at 3:33 pm when you ask
Sadly, no, the journals will be among the last places to see the unravelling.
The issue began in 1980 in the UK as a political issue. And it has always been primarily a political issue.
It grew until it was halted at Copenhagen in late 2009. The rejection of a successor to the Kyoto Protocol then stopped the bandwagon and politicians have been climbing off the wagon ever since.
But politicians cannot do a public U-turn because that would cost votes. So they will continue to fund climastrology because that maintains the appearance of continuing the issue, Meanwhile they will continue to use AGW as an excuse for taxation in various forms. But – as Germany is showing – retreat from mad energy policies will be slow and assured. And the priority given to AGW policies will slowly reduce until, eventually, it ceases.
Finally, nobody will remember the AGW-scare unless reminded of it. Similarly, nobody now remembers the ‘acid rain’ scare of the 1980s unless reminded of it, but nobody declared that scare was over.
As with ‘acid rain’ the science journals will be the last place to notice the end of the AGW-scare because that is where the results of climastrology funding are seen. And those funds will only slowly reduce until they almost stop.
Richard
Stan W. says:
April 23, 2013 at 2:42 pm
cherry picking can give you any answer you want
Please show me which dates will give me Santer’s 17 years of zero warming on RSS.
@fredd — good question. it will likely go unanswered. sites like this are working to construct an alternative reality that is independent of anything appearing in the published literature, or that appear at conferences, or that is held by scientific societies etc.
@werner — why are you insistent on using RSS?
of course, i know why — it gives you the results you want.
but it differs significantly from the 4 other datasets (GISS, HadCRUT4, NCDC, UAH).
its difference with UAH has also changed significantly in recent years.
these make it suspicious.
@werner — where did you ever get the idea that “17 years” is some kind of natural law?
that is a result from modeling studies. i thought “sceptics” don’t accept results from models because they believe them fundamentally flawed.
or do you believe them only when they support your positions?