German newspaper Spiegel names WUWT the most prominent climate skeptic blog

Unfortunately, they didn’t get the name quite right. They also label climate science reports as “untrustworthy”. It is nice to see though that WUWT seems to be the polar opposite of “The Guardian” and its impact.

spiegel-climate-rankings

“Prominentester Klimaskeptiker Blog” ==”The most prominent climate skeptic Blog”

(h/t to Kip Hansen)

Pierre Gosselin writes on “No Tricks Zone”:


Spiegel science journalist Axel Bojanowski here writes a harsh but well-deserved analysis of the heated debate now raging in climate science.

One thing that we can gather from his analysis is that consensus is totally absent, and that it is very difficult to trust any report on climate science nowadays. He writes in the sub-headline:

Reports on climate science are hardly trustworthy, analyses show. The reason is biased journalists, hyping politicians and arrogant scientists.”

Bojanowski writes that too often the huge uncertainty in the science rarely ever gets properly mentioned, criticizing for example the UN IPCC 2007 claim that hurricanes were in fact growing in intensity. Today of course know we know this is false as there hasn’t been a single major hurricane strike in the US since. (See EPA report)

Distorted communication

Spiegel’s Bojanowski describes a smoke-and-mirrors environment within climate science and its communication. He writes climate scientists today have a “communication problem“, stemming in large part from “uncertainties and knowledge gaps“. The Spiegel journalist feels “their results all too often remain buried“. Citing a recent SAGE article on climate science communication, Bojanowski tells his readers that the authors of reports often present “results coming from climate science in a troublesome way“.

Bojanowski, a geology major, also examines the main purveyors of public climate science knowledge (from a German perspective), arranging them from the extreme downplayers of the issue, all the way to the extreme alarmists: European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE), WattsUpWithThat by Anthony Watts, Klimazwiebel by Hans von Storch, Real Climate, The Guardian, and German ultra-alarmist site Klimaretter.

Opinions aside, if anything can be said of his ranking it is that the alarmists in fact do not represent the often claimed overwhelming majority and that in fact a broad spectrum of different positions on the science truly exists – just as one should if the science is to progress and not morph into some sort of unchallengeable dogma.

See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2015/09/09/spiegel-slams-sorrowful-state-of-climate-science-communication-reports-hardly-trustworthy-arrogant-scientists/

Note: shortly after publication some  formatting errors were corrected in this article and a hat tip added

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
PaulH

WUWT is still my go-to blog, and I visit here every day.
I certainly agree with this statement:
“Reports on climate science are hardly trustworthy, analyses show. The reason is biased journalists, hyping politicians and arrogant scientists.”
Of course, just about all of civilization’s ills can be blamed on any combination of those reasons.
/snark

Resourceguy

Yes, it’s a major resource for daily use.

tomwys1

If the German readers Google “Whatts up With That,” they arrive at a De Niro, Williams, Buckingham skit, with the real site in third place. Still, they’ll get there, and the journey is well worth it!!!

1saveenergy

Fame if not fortune

phaedo

I’m sure the Koch brothers cheques are in the post. /sarc

Jimbo

Reports on climate science are hardly trustworthy, analyses show. The reason is biased journalists, hyping politicians and arrogant scientists.”

Ahhh. Let me make a few adjustments.

Reports on climate science are hardly trustworthy, analyses show. The reason is biased journalists and climate ‘scientists’, hyping politicians and climate ‘scientists’ and arrogant climastrologists hungry to defend their lavish and continued funding”

My adjustments simply are not hard hitting enough, but this is a family friendly website.

PiperPaul

97% improvement.

I am led to believe that Spiegel is a major German paper. Nice to see this article in a major paper.

Gentle Tramp

Sorry to disturb your joy, but this text from the online version is only a little exception. In its print version, SPIEGEL has become even more alarmistic than other main stream journals in Germany. Just some months ago the print version of SPIEGEL showed a burnig Earth on its front page:
http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-131927786.html

Gentle Tramp

Sorry – typo alarm: Of course, there was a burniNg Earth on the cover (ironically at the North Pole)…
BTW: Notrickszone had a nice comment about that front cover as well:
http://notrickszone.com/2015/02/26/catastrophe-hopping-spiegel-german-news-magazine-rolls-out-latest-climate-horror-vision-a-burning-north-pole/#sthash.MS5wXwE6.dpbs

Indeed.
but the Spiegel im Spiegel is a totally different matter

Gentle Tramp

Hi Vukcecic
How true… 😉
Well, let’s call this video a congratulation by wuwt users to Arvo Pärt who had his 80th birthday just two days ago.
This music is so simple but nevertheless astonishing impressive. Maybe it can be decribed as the acoustic opposite of alarmism… 🙂
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiegel_im_Spiegel

Dawtgtomis

Thanks Vukcevic, I love minimalist music, (though I see he doesn’t want to be genre-ized). “Take a trip without leavin’ the farm!”

Mark Hladik

Dawtgtomis: And I thought I was the only person who’d ever heard that song!

Charlie

Speigal is the largest reliable news source in Germany. The Bild is an equally large news source that is not considered as credible.

Yes, the Spiegel magazine is just as reliable, non-partisan and non-ideological as our Time magazine.
http://img.timeinc.net/time/images/covers/asia/2006/20060403_400.jpg
http://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/2001/1101010409_400.jpg

Feldheld

The only thing thats reliable with the Spiegel is its left-leaning agenda. It sells hatred in a sophisticated style.

Leo Smith

Der Spiegel is in fact quite ‘balanced’ (or unbalanced) in its coverage as it tends to have articles written by both camps without conbtardiction by the other.
My lunatic green sister (German citizen for decades) merely huffed when I mentioned it. “What else would you expect” etc etc.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/
is worth looking at now and again..

Barbara Skolaut

<Der Spiegel (“The Mirror”) is more of a magazine than a newspaper; Think Time magazine (don’t know if they’re as thin as Time is now – haven’t lived in Germany for decades). Just as leftist, though.

Barbara Skolaut

Sorry, this reply was meant for markstoval further up. 🙁

Jimmy Haigh

More recognition for Anthony’s great work here.

‘beschwichtigend- ‘Conciliatory,’ ‘placatory,’ ?

Tony Judge on September 13, 2015 at 2:37 pm
‘beschwichtigend- ‘Conciliatory,’ ‘placatory,’ ?

Tony Judge,
The German word ‘beschwichtigend’ in certain contexts also means ‘to allay’. So, Anthony’s WUWT could be said to allay much fear and anxiety in the public about climate exaggerations of catastrophic AGW.
John

Goldrider

This brings up an important question: At this Paris pow-wow, will there be representation of the anti-AGW viewpoint, in other words, us? Is anyone going to be able to get up there, like Lord Monckton, and give a PowerPoint presentation proving beyond any doubt what the OBSERVED DATA for the last 20 years show? How would we go about getting this done? Even if skeptics mounted soap boxes on street corners to make themselves heard it might garner enough media attention to raise questions about the delusional “policy makers” inside. As I see it we CANNOT allow this “shared-universe fantasy” world of theirs to continue unchallenged.
One can only hope that the readership of WUWT is becoming broad indeed!

warrenlb

If the anti-AGW crowd had any actual scientific evidence it would be interesting. But since they do not, no one cares to hear them.

What’s an “anti-AGW crowd”? Speaking for myself, I’ve always accepted that AGW exists. It’s just too minuscule to measure.
And speaking of evidence, it’s your conjecture. Skeptics have no obligation to produce measurements or anything else. We only have to falsify your ‘dangerous AGW’ nonsense, and that’s been done repeatedly.

Jimbo

warrenlb
September 13, 2015 at 8:07 pm
If the anti-AGW crowd had any actual scientific evidence it would be interesting. But since they do not, no one cares to hear them.

Sceptics don’t have to present any evidence. All the have to do is point out failed predictions and flaws.
What do you have to say about Dr. James Hansen’s following abstract papers?

Abstract – PNAS – August 15, 2000
James Hansen et. al.
Global warming in the twenty-first century: An alternative scenario
A common view is that the current global warming rate will continue or accelerate. But we argue that rapid warming in recent decades has been driven mainly by non-CO2 greenhouse gases (GHGs), such as chlorofluorocarbons, CH4, and N2O, not by the products of fossil fuel burning, CO2 and aerosols, the positive and negative climate forcings of which are partially offsetting. The growth rate of non-CO2 GHGs has declined in the past decade……
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/18/9875.long
==============
Abstract – PNAS – 4 November 2003
James Hansen et. al.
Soot climate forcing via snow and ice albedos
Plausible estimates for the effect of soot on snow and ice albedos (1.5% in the Arctic and 3% in Northern Hemisphere land areas) yield a climate forcing of +0.3 W/m2 in the Northern Hemisphere. The “efficacy” of this forcing is ~2, i.e., for a given forcing it is twice as effective as CO2 in altering global surface air temperature. This indirect soot forcing may have contributed to global warming of the past century, including the trend toward early springs in the Northern Hemisphere, thinning Arctic sea ice, and melting land ice and permafrost……
http://www.pnas.org/content/101/2/423.abstract

Dear warrenlb:
Do you really want to convince the “anti-AGW crowd?” Just provide a long list of predictions of substantial ongoing negative impacts of climate change, from the “pro-AGW crowd” for 2015 or earlier, which actually came to pass by the stated dates. I suspect that Anthony would be happy to publish your article on the topic.

commieBob

You say that CAGW must be correct because the skeptics can’t prove that it won’t happen. Let me rephrase your argument somewhat:
I assert that there is a tea pot orbiting the sun approximately half way between the Earth and Mars. You have to believe me because you can’t prove that I’m wrong.

Russell’s teapot … is an analogy first coined by … Bertrand Russell … to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, … wiki

Gamecock

We frequently see the Argumentum ad Ignorantiam fallacy from Climate Scientists. They claim that, since they can’t think of any other reason for global warming, it MUST be caused by Man.

Leon0112

It could be very entertaining if Mark Steyn covered the Paris confab.

Steve (Paris)

Be happy to put him up if does show up in Paris! I have been wondering if an ‘offsite’ event is being organised, although its hard to think how it could make a real difference amidst the mass drive being put together by the AGW crowd; 50,000 delegates from 115 countries, the entire mass media fully behind the ‘message’. But then from tiny acorns great oaks grow.

Last I heard, Lord Monckton was disinvited from attending, unless circumstances have changed; meaning that someone else will have to use unattended microphones to distribute common sense.
Consider that 50,000 plus advocates, some attendees with their minions along with copious green trough parasites like green-nonpeace and WWF screaming their religious devotions.
– All decent hotels will be booked for miles around Paris and especially Orly airport.
– Civilized French folks will be absent, unavailable or hidden.
– Uncivilized French folks will be in abundance along with every pickpocket from any Euro Country.
– Any decent or better French food will not be on grocers shelves.
– Any restaurant attendee that doesn’t speak good French can forget good service.
– Driving vehicles and soliciting cabs will be, challenging.
– Any sensible purveyor will charge at least 10% more.
– Non VAT tax country attendees will have lots of fun getting the VAT tax removed or reimbursed.
Poor food, poor accommodations, lack of normal Gallic frivolity and “joie de vivre”
Why did you want someone normally sensible to attend?
I think we should just wish the attendees bad meetings, terrible disagreements, zero common grounds and the worst Paris traffic for fifty years.

Gary Pearse

Add a metre of snow.

Barbara Skolaut

“– All decent hotels will be booked for miles around Paris and especially Orly airport.
– Civilized French folks will be absent, unavailable or hidden.
– Uncivilized French folks will be in abundance along with every pickpocket from any Euro Country.
– Any decent or better French food will not be on grocers shelves.
– Any restaurant attendee that doesn’t speak good French can forget good service.
– Driving vehicles and soliciting cabs will be, challenging.
– Any sensible purveyor will charge at least 10% more.
– Non VAT tax country attendees will have lots of fun getting the VAT tax removed or reimbursed.”
So, business as usual – just like when the alarministas are NOT in town?

Jimbo

If sceptics got just 1/4 of the funding of Warmists then Warmism would be over and out. The question Warmists must ask themselves is this: Q) Why is it that pesky sceptics are still loud and proud? A recent UN global survery put climate change concerns last.
ANSWER: Truth is cheap or free, lies and propaganda costs lots of money.
I sit back to enjoy the replies to my statement of fact.

Allencic

BTW, Mahatma Gandhi is on the side of the few
https://chiefio.wordpress.com/2015/09/12/mahatma-gandhi-quote-for-skeptics/
“Many people, especially ignorant people, want to punish you for speaking the truth, for being correct, for being you. Never apologize for being correct, or for being years ahead of your time. If you’re right and you know it, speak your mind. Speak your mind. Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is still the truth.”
― Mahatma Gandhi

Jimbo

Allencic, I believe in COST EFFICIENT ALTERNATIVE ENERGY, democracy, anti-bad-pollution (pollute we will), human rights and all that. What I will not stand for is lies and exaggerations. Dishonest climate scientists should be ashamed of themselves. They are a disgrace to the human race.

Jimbo

I have sat back but no push back to my statement. I go to bed. Until tomorrow.
My statement is below
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/13/german-newspaper-spiegel-names-wuwt-the-most-prominent-climate-skeptic-blog/#comment-2026862

MRW

Glad to see you’re back commenting, Jimbo.

MCourtney

Good to see that that the debate is acknowledged.
Good to see that the Guardian is seen as being far from neutral (like WUWT also).
But two things are missing:
1) The weight of the site. RealClimate may only be weakly alarmist but it hardly ever updates. It’s a ghost site (almost). Being reasonable once a month is far less reasonable than the Guardian or WUWT would be if they were / are “reasonable” once in ten.
2) Being neutral is not necessarily good. Tolerating anti-vaccination campaigns is neutral but stupid and dangerous. A better scale is empirical to idealistic. It wouldn’t be that different, actually.

Kev-in-Uk

Any neutrality has to be based on sound (climate) science. Since the climate science field seems devoid of much real science proper assessment or neutrality is nigh on impossible.
Put another way – if someone publishes crap then they must expect it to be discovered. The real problem is that it has to be discovered OUTSIDE of the proper peer review channels i.e blogs such as WUWT. If the science were sound – blogs such as these would fizzle away…..

Jimbo

MONEY IS the driving force for the alarmist BS. When Lord Stern said IN THE GUARDIAN that ‘climate change’ was worse than he thought, he forgot to mention his green investments. I found this economist out and it’s too easy. He has to declare his interests in the UK House of Lords Register of interests. This is really disgraceful.
They tell me to listen to the ‘science’. Are they now telling me to listen to the economist on the complex and chaotic climate??? PS Economists are well known to get their forecasts wrong more times that right. LOL.
Lord Stern’s vested interests in alternative energy.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/16/260-ton-for-carbon-the-price-of-salvation/#comment-1663660

Jimbo

Yeah, does anyone actually read or even still have Real Climate bookmarked?

Alx

biased journalists, hyping politicians and arrogant scientists.

Actually this makes an excellent basis for a dictionary definition of Climate Science.
Climate Science – biased journalism, political hype, arrogant scientists, unlimited hubris, all based on little solid science or evidence.

Paul Westhaver

1) Deny. The establishment denied that WUWT existed.
2) Ridicule. The establishment ridiculed WUWT et al and wrote it off as deniers.
3) Accept. The Media Party now defacto accepts WUWT albeit, begrudgingly.
It took a while…10 years?
Guess what WUWT exists! Congrats.
Now maybe you can go to the Media Party parties and rub shoulders with Peter Gleick?

Marcus

When the climate STOPS changing, THEN I’ll start worrying !!!

Charlie

Was ist dast? Nicht Sehr?

Robert Doyle

Mr. Gosselin manages an excellent blog. At notrickszone this year, he has compiled a number of articles from multiple sources, which itemize the pioneering effort by the German government. The “renewable drive” is named Energiewende [English: Energy Transition]. When the EU moved towards renewables, Germany dove into the deep end of the pool. Germany is ~ 50% the size of Texas. Germany has installed 75,000 wind turbines. This living lab is worth our understanding.
In the first half of this year, I responded to one of Mr. Gosselin’s posts with a request, that he compile his energiewende articles into a compiled separate tab. I still feel that it would have value.
Below is the first notrickszone posts, that caught my attention and an independent article, which supports Mr. Gosselin’s posts.
http://notrickszone.com/2015/02/07/germany-2014-report-card-is-in-its-25000-wind-turbines-get-an-f-averaged-only-14-8-of-rated-capacity/#sthash.AQdV3SsA.dpbs
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/energiewende-two-energy-lessons-for-the-united-states-from-germany/
In my opinion Mr. Gosselin deserves an award.

Dawtgtomis

Robert Doyle said:
“In my opinion Mr. Gosselin deserves an award.”
I will second that, a visit to notrickszone was what caused me to first discover this site.

herkimer

Robert Doyle
I think you meant to say Germany has 25000 wind turbines . US has more . I estimate 43000 wind turbines with about 66000 MW
At the recent 10th INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON CLIMATE CHANGE, one of the speakers , Wolfgang Muller,, General Secretary of European Institute for Climate and Energy reported on the German experience with wind turbines and solar panels . They have 72,000 MW of installed renewable energy, 35000 MW in wind turbines and 37,400 MW in solar panels. The combined performance is that 75% of the time the output is less than 20% of the nameplate capacity. 90 % of the time the wind turbine output is below 30% of the name plate capacity. The output of the solar panels is just as poor, with 55% of the time the output is blow 10% of capacity

Gamecock

. . . but if they only had good batteries!

herkimer

thttp://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/energiewende-two-energy-lessons-for-the-united-states-from-germany/
There is a big difference between Germany and United States. Germany already in 2014 produced 30 % of their power via renewables and is net exporter of electrical energy, exporting 33.8 Twh of energy in 2014 ( almost the equivalent of all of their solar output of 32.8 Twh) to the rest of Europe . Wind accounted for 51.4 Twh or only about 10 % of 2014 power generation . So they are covered by coal, gas hydro for 90% of their electrical generation and plenty of reserve power when they have 30 % renewables. and a large European grid as well. As US converts to 28 % renewables or intermittent power BY 2030 from the current 13 % level by cutting back base coal power , they are loosing more and more of their steady back up power and reserve power for times when there is no wind or sun light and a peak load exists( unless they also add more natural gas back up power as they add wind which they are not doing ) The lesson for US from the German experience is not to loose too much of their steady back up power and maintain a healthy reserve power level .. Renewables should not planned as a “replacement” energy but for ” added” power in certain locations and situations where adequate back up exists.

Billy Liar

The key question, which I have never seen answered, is what is the average price paid per kWh for Germany’s exported electrical energy?
My suspicion is that it is practically almost free because there is no market for it in Germany.

Billy Liar

Herkimer,
Thanks for the reference! it would appear that when there is a lot of wind and/or solar power the price often falls to zero or below on the market.

herkimer

Billy Liar
There is a market outside of Germany. Largest exports are during the cold part of the year
Germany sells or exports to Austria, , Czech Republic, Netherland , Poland

I was unable to find an English version of the Spiegel piece, and web translation of it was hopeless.
Anyone have access to a modern German to modern English translation of it? Or would attempt to translate for us?
Note: The original h/t properly goes to Judith Curry, who included the notrickszone link in her weekly science roundup.

Michael Hebert

Hmmm…. interesting…. Johnny-boy’s website didn’t even merit a mention. Maybe since he’s a columnist in the Guardian that’s dishonorable mention enough.

Hey Anthony, It’s interesting that you get to be green and the alarmists are the threatening red. Have they changed sides?

Bernie Roseke

Der Spiegel, by the way, is Germany’s Time magazine. Big publicity for a country with 80 million (German speaking is probably closer to 110 million)

eyesonu

I believe WUWT may be better described as “the most prominent climate science blog.” I’m not sure if the “believers/alarmists” even have a site that has a ranking.
Oh yea …. I remember when WUWT and Anthony Watts was/were the names not to be spoken. For those that were not around at the time of the first batch of released ClimateGate emails, the ‘team’ warned to not even mention Anthony Watts’ name and I think it even included Steve McIntyre.

MRW

Make you wonder what the ‘team’ is afraid of.

I am inspired here to re-post one of my favorite cartoons.
What a Waste
http://www.maxphoton.com/what-a-waste/

I would rather post all my essays here on WUWT than in a cientific journal because it is both more open and it has more eyes critiquing my conclusions!

emsnews

Congratulations for making some appearance in German news. Germany is broiling over this week, Merkel had to suddenly reverse her ‘open borders’ in the last 24 hours. The politics there are about to make a huge reversal on a number of issues including the disaster of the Energiewende.

WT

How quickly humans forget their past doomsday fads such as Population Explosion, Impending Ice Age, Earthquakes Breaking up North America, along with Ghosts, UFOs, Sasquatch/Big Foot/Yeti, Lochnessie et. al.

“Der Spiegel’s” article seems to have left out critical information from their rankings, like the member and visitation numbers that drive those rankings.
The author must have discovered the numbers when doing the research; leaving the assumption that his rationale for not publishing the actual counts was not the public good and right to know.

Gary Pearse

Didn’t they just open their borders to a million ‘refugees’? Maybe they have to sign a declaration that they are CAGW supporters to get in. The German police found one of the Syrian refugees to be an ISIS agent who was carrying hundreds of Syrian passports to deal out to his friends among the refugees, which by the way are about 75% young men – not the usual composition of large influxes of refugees!!!
https://www.veooz.com/news/aJfwDLG.html
Merkle should be impeached for her totally destructive open door refugee policy.

Speaking of prominentester Klimaskeptiker, where is DirkH?

stttt

[SNIP -HATE SPEECH -MOD]