OUT: One less climate alarmist

From Fritz Vahrenholt and Sebastian Lüning at their website Die Kalte Sonne, comes this bit of good news.

One of the most irrational warmists in the world, Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber, of the Potsdam PIK is getting forced out by his activism.

Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber

Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber will retire in autumn 2018 and hand over the leadership of the Potsdam PIK Klimainstitut. The successors are already selected . Schellnhuber had become more and more of a burden for the institute in recent years. Parts of the policyhad already called for his removal from the “Scientific Advisory Council on Global Environmental Change” (WBGU), in which he advocated a line that went in the direction of eco-labeling. In the end, it probably alone has saved him another word of the Chancellor’s power. In addition, a mysterious accumulation of Schellnhuber’s publicationsin the journal of the National Academy of Science was noticed. The secret was probably that as a member of the company he was allowed to select his article reviewer seber.

Some of the press finally said what many thought. Spiegel to Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber: “One gets the impression that you are now more activist than physicist” . This also fits his role as ghostwriter for the Pope , to whom he apparently put his words almost at will in the mouth. He largely ignored the uncertainties in the climate sciences. His goal: the unconditional destruction of the fossil fuel industry . As a chancellor counselor, he also launched this message in the highest regard. The story will tell Schellnhuber’s role in the climate debate and over-hasty energy transition in the coming years and decades. Now we need a Schellnhuber break for the first time. Let’s hope the new PIK leadership corrects the extreme direction of the institute and ends the flow of climate-alarmist press releases as quickly as possible. What we need now is a balanced and level-headed presentation of the results, without constant urge for proselytizing.



120 thoughts on “OUT: One less climate alarmist

      • Brad Keyes,

        Once again, love your comments, even learned a new word:ethologist. I must say, though, that sometimes i don’t know where your sarcasm starts or stops (but it’s all good). I’ve never read anything from Mann, so if that’s your sarc, great. If he really wrote that, then the guy is a loony-tune that must have eaten some mushrooms growing out of the Serengeti dung. :)

      • God is still in control, I’d wager. Perhaps mysterious ways will follow and the pope will come to his senses.

      • MarkW,

        Actually, I was playing off his comment (and link) to get a cheap, ad hom dig at Mann (hey, it’s Friday).

      • Ad hom digs at Mann can get quite expensive, as you probably know. For the budget-conscious critic (and for Mark Steyn’s future reference), the trick is always to preface the word “fr@ud” with “pure” and “scientific.”

      • I thought sarcasm was supposed to be amusing.

        Not at all. It often does amuse, but that’s not its duty.

        sarcasm | ˈsärˌkazəm |

        the use of irony to mock or convey contempt: his voice, hardened by sarcasm, could not hide his resentment.
        mid 16th century: from French sarcasme, or via late Latin from late Greek sarkasmos, from Greek sarkazein ‘tear flesh’, in late Greek ‘gnash the teeth, speak bitterly’ (from sarx, sark- ‘flesh’).

    • I do not know these men but I do know the international scene.

      In everywhere EXCEPT the Magna Carta countries (and perhaps ~two others), bribery is a way of life.

      We have seen this in international business, where “facilitation payments” are a deductible business expense in many (if not all) European countries.

      Bribery permeates the Olympics, including the judging, and elsewhere – so why not academia.

      There is no questions these global warming alarmists are technically wrong; they are also proven to be sleazy; so why not allow for the possibility that they are being bribed – by the organized crime types that control much of the wind power industry, and by others who seek to profit from the multi-trillion-dollar-per-year global warming and green energy scam.

      • This article, directly related to the and industry in Ontario, might be of interest to people who are not aware of the bribery and gag orders.

      • Thank you Sommer for your reference to this article,

        Politicians love big projects because there is so much more opportunity for bribes and scams. That is what Jean Chretien meant when he said that signing the Kyoto Accords just “felt right”. You bet it did.



        That said, with NextEra as a major player in Ontario’s wind energy business along with Siemens (who has the distinction of paying the largest fine ever under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act over extensive bribery of foreign officials in 10 different countries) and Samsung (with it’s own bribery scandals being well-known), one has to wonder whether the government knew who they were inviting into the province when they opened the flood gates under the Green Energy Act in 2009.

  1. Out of the ashes, into the fire.
    This Swede Johan Rockström is of the same ilk (?) as Shnellnhuber.

    After 12 years as director of Stockholm Resilience Centre (SRC), Johan Rockström has announced he will step down in October 2018. Rockström will become joint director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), based in Germany, together with PIK’s current deputy director Professor Ottmar Edenhofer. Rockström and Edenhofer replace PIK director Professor Hans Joachim Schellnhuber. PIK is one of Europe’s leading centres for climate change and sustainability research.

      • …. or perhaps the antibiotics are beginning to work and that we shall see this as the beginning of the end of the terrible disease that has cost the world so much in its inexplicable and massively expensive spread across nations in recent years.

      • Only light of day on these dirty schemes will help.

        And it needs to be mandatory:

        Anything that is based on hidden “science” gets nullified on the spot. No if no but. No “judges” no juries.

        If the courts won’t comply, fire the judge, fire the courts, reboot the justice system, reboot the System.

    • Bengt: what a curriculum vitae for Rockstrom! Twelve years with ‘Stockholm Resilience Centre’. These mysterious jobs will disappear and historians will have a time trying to figure out what the fellow did for a living. It sounds like a post that deals with unrehabilitative criminals.

      • Since climate science has been a victim of “Stockholm Syndrome”, thanks to the IPCC, who better to step in than a Stockholm veteran. /sarc off

      • The main function of the “Stockholm Resilience Center” is to serve as a feeding through for Rockström.

    • While Rockström is on the surface a true climate fanatic I strongly doubt that he has any real conviction about climate or anything else. He is most of all an extreme opportunist, a master in telling politicians what they most want to hear.

      He is also without any real scientific qualifications. PIK calls him an “earth system scientist”, but he is actually an agronomist(!), and a not very successful one either.

      • Rockstöm has a doctor degree in irrigation.
        Yet he did not see the difference of land subsidence due to groundwater out take and sea level rise in the Mekong delta-or he did not want to inform us. (TV show for some years ago)
        So he is devoted to climate change.

  2. What we need now is a balanced and level-headed presentation of the results, without constant urge for proselytizing.

    If the world is ending then a balanced presentation of the results will not be level-headed.

    And if it isn’t then a level-headed presentation of the results will not look balanced.

    • If the world is ending …

      Kipling had something to say about that:

      If you can keep your head when all about you
       Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,
      If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
       But make allowance for their doubting too.
      If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
       Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
      Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,
       And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise:

      If you can dream—and not make dreams your master;
       If you can think—and not make thoughts your aim;
      If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster,
       And treat those two impostors just the same;
      If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
       Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
      Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
       And stoop and build ’em up with worn-out tools:

      If you can make a heap of all your winnings
       And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
      And lose, and start again at your beginnings
       And never breathe a word about your loss;
      If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
       To serve your turn long after they are gone,
      And so hold on when there is nothing in you
       Except the Will which says to them: “Hold on!”

      If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
       Or walk with Kings—nor lose the common touch,
      If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
       If all men count with you, but none too much;
      If you can fill the unforgiving minute
       With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run,
      Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,
       And—which is more—you’ll be a Man, my son! link

      • Thanks commieBob, there’s a lot of wisdom in that ‘poem’. Or maybe that spells out wisdom.

      • Rudyard Kipling is my namesake once removed. Very simple. His English namesake was a Battle of Britain aviator survivror, who came to US to train US combat aviators, one of which was my father. Partial reveal, of no consequence fiven layered IT protections.
        And my WW2 air force aviator dads version of Kiplings poem I never forgot—-
        If you can keep your head while all around do not, you just DO NOT understnd the situation. A terrific commentary on ‘OMG, its worse than we fhought!!!’

      • ristvan March 9, 2018 at 6:02 pm

        … If you can keep your head while all around do not, you just DO NOT understnd the situation.

        It’s funny but useless. If you get out of your own head, you’ll see crap coming long before others do. Then you’ll be in a position to respond meaningfully while everyone else is reacting in a panic.

      • this line always troubled me “If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you” would tend to describe someone incapable of empathy,a psychopathic trait. may well be my misunderstanding , i only managed an “o” level in english.

      • bitchilly March 10, 2018 at 9:55 am

        … this line always troubled me “If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you” would tend to describe someone incapable of empathy,a psychopathic trait. …

        Life is a balancing act.

        Kipling doesn’t say to ignore the feelings and opinions of others.

        If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
         But make allowance for their doubting too.

        If someone says something which I interpret as hurtful, my first reaction should be:

        Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. link

        After that, I have to ask myself if they might have a point. If that’s the case it would be wise to deal with it. Even the local crazy lady occasionally says something worth paying attention to. :-) Anyway, staying in my study and licking my wounds isn’t a long term solution to anything. (OMG, even Michael Mann is right about a lot of things.)

    • Good one MC! This drivel-speak is a hallmark of activists with nothing sensible to say. Moreover, their ‘disciplines’ and the names of their institutions will be a puzzle for future historians. One of Schellnhuber’s replacements, Rockstrom, just spent 12 years as head of the “Stockholm Resilience Centre”???

  3. The Translation is pretty rough, but the point is clear on his manipulation of the PNAS manuscript review process. PNAS is easily manipulated by members to get a peer-review lite on their activist papers. Other climate activists have used this route before, like Mark Jacobsen at Stanford with his deeply flawed renewable energy paper. Which then he tried to sue to get a retraction from another group that demonstrated how deep those flaws were.

    But now 30 years-in on the climate alarmism business model, nature is finally beginning to show her hand on actual climate versus CO2 forcing, and its not gonna be nice for the alarmists. The result will be cautious, but steady, climb-downs in the coming years from institutes that have been at the leading edge of alarmism. And in many cases the only viable path for a climb-down from that alarmism will be to dump (forced retirements) of the alarmists.

  4. The Irony is that Germany lost WWII because they had no Petroleum industry…thank God. Had Hitler focused on holding Baku and other oil fields, the outcome of the war would most likely have been quite different. The fact that we had oil and Germany and Japan didn’t was the difference of the war. If we would have relied on wind and solar, we would have lost the war.

    • There were also the issues of Germany attacking Russia and Japan attacking America. My grandfather was part of ‘Dunsterforce’ at Baku in WW1 attempting to defend the Centro-Caspian Dictatorship from the Islamic Army of the Caucasus. Dunsterforce was too small and the Dictatorship seemed in any case more intent on infighting and hanging around in cafes. I’m lucky that the Islamic Army paused long enough for an orderly retreat up the Caspian Sea.

    • co2islife

      After the 2nd battle of El Alamein (Oct-Nov 1942), Germay fought tenaciously but had very few strategic victories against the Allies and front lines continually shrunk around Germany (even if you somehow classify the Battle of the Bulge as some kind of “moral victory”). Stalingrad alone (winter 1942-43) cost the German Axis an estimate 800,000 casualties. After Stalingrad, the Germans fought the surging Russians in the West, lost Italy to the South, and after D-day 1944, Allies invaded France & Germany from the East..

      From late 1942 on, the Allies massively outproduced German war materials, and Germany (Hitler) made several critical strategic errors (Hitler was Germany’s absolute worst general). Pertoleum supplies were a factor, but not the proximate cause of German defeat.

    • Actually Germany had a substantial coal hydrogenation industry which (together with the Rumanian oilfields) produced enough synthetic petroleum to keep the Wehrmacht running until the Allies at long last started bombing it in spring 1944. And Germany never did manage to occupy Baku.

      The Japanese on the other hand started the war in order to conquer the oilfields of Southeast Asia. And they did. However they hadn’t thought to build enough tankers and escorts to bring the oil safely back to Japan, and there weren’t nearly enough refineries near the fields. So they had plenty of petroleum, but not enough fuel oil or gasoline.

  5. ” In addition, a mysterious accumulation of Schellnhuber’s publications in the journal of the National Academy of Science was noticed. The secret was probably that as a member of the company he was allowed to select his article reviewer seber.”

    Truly pathetic. They have totally corrupted the scientific process.

    • That would have been under the US NAS presidency of Ralph Cicerone. You can bet he was not ignorant of the doings at PNAS.

      Ralph was followed by Marcia McNutt, the current president. She’s as nuts about CO2 as Ralph was.

  6. This is rather strange. When my cat is in heat, she’s nuts. I thought she was the nuttiest thing on the planet. Now I find there is someone nuttier than my cat.

    Who’d a-thunk it?

    Well, I hope this is the beginning of the end of manipulating results to get grants and publicity, and that something better displaces the nonsense that has been generated out of the dishonesty. It’s pathetic to say that sometimes, I can’t even get an accurate local weather report because the weather station says it’s cloudy when the sky is clear from horizon to horizon, all the way to southern Michigan.

    I do hope that things change for the better from now on.

  7. Wonderful. Now Schnellhubris can have cell meetings with the Red Pope all day long.

    Edenhofer I believe is an improvement. At least he is honest:

    “…developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore…”

    • Sadly there is no mention if this person is retiring from his position on the Red Popes pontificate academy of science, in which position he wrote the ridiculous encyclical on global warming Laduato Sie.
      So no doubt he will not go quietly.

    • Hunter

      Not really. He’s wanders off the religious reservation and back into science, in which he has no rigorous training. The confusion over the Pope’s master degree in chemistry is settled by the fact his “graduation certificate was issued to him when he was 19, after which he went to university for philosophy studies.

      Any day we should be hearing about perfect crystalline spheres…

  8. “getting forced out by his activism”
    There is no evidence that Schellnhuber is doing anything other than retiring in the normal course of events. He turns 68 in June. All this article offers to the contrary is opinion written on a contrarian blog, with no factual backing.

      • You are a hopeless case Nick. If there is any evidence whatsoever that Schellnhuber is retiring in the normal course of events then you should present it.

        You just made it up!

      • What seems to be made up here is the claim that he was forced out. It isn’t even supported by the “Kalte Sonne” blog post. They don’t say he was forced out. You could argue that they seem to think he should have been, but they don’t say he was.

        As Pat notes below, his successors were named last October, probably a year before he actually leaves. Doesn’t sound like an unplanned exit.

      • Very sad Nick. Twice I called you out for just making stuff up. Now use a post hoc justification for something you just made up.

        You really are a complete and utter climate scientist.

      • Forrest Gardener: ‘There is no evidence whatsoever that Schellnhuber is retiring in the normal course of events.’

        Germany’s official retirement age is 65 years and a bit. Schellnhuber is heading up 68, and is retiring.

        Sounds pretty normal.

      • “Twice I called you out for just making stuff up.”
        Nonsensically. I simply said there is no evidence of any kind that this is other than a simple retirement, as announced. Simply true, there isn’t. If you want to “call me out” with any effect, provide some.

      • You just keep digging yourself a bigger and bigger hole Nick.

        What you did was to make an assertion with absolutely no supporting evidence.

        When challenged you twice offered no evidence. Now you just want to change the subject.

        You are damned by what you wrote.

      • I seldom agree with Nick, but he has every right to stick with the “retiring in the normal course of things” interpretation unless and until someone can show evidence otherwise. After all, that’s the null hypothesis (a 68-year-old retiring is just a 68-year-old retiring). Sorry, Bruce and Forrest, but as scientific people, we don’t get to demand evidence from someone who merely asserts the null hypothesis. It’s those of us who read something more into the announcement that are obliged to say why.

      • Forrest, thanks for replying. I’m not saying Schnellnhuber retired of natural causes, merely that the burden of evidence is on those who think he was pushed. It’s important, in my view, always to acknowledge when our “opponents” make a valid point—otherwise what reason do they have to believe us the next time we try to tell them they’re wrong? (And because it’s the right thing to do for its own sake.)

      • And there was I working on the basis that he who asserts must prove. The assumption that anything to do with any alarmist is on the level is what I would call brave. And besides didn’t Trenberth want to reverse the null hypothesis?

      • And there was I working on the basis that he who asserts must prove.

        Alas, this wise adage is a simplification.

        He who asserts a positive, non-null hypothesis must prov[ide evidenc]e.

        He who merely says “there is no reason to think Schnellnhuber’s retirement is unusual or involuntary” is under no such obligation. Retirement is just retirement until shown otherwise.

        Does that distinction make sense?

      • This is getting kinda screwy, but Nick’s assertion was that Schellnuber’s retirement was “usual” and “voluntary”. Both are worded in Nick’s usual obfuscatory style, but they are positive assertions none the less.

        He wants us to assume that all is above board. That too is a positive assertion.

        Besides, supporting Nick’s propaganda will give you both wrinkles!

      • It gives me no pleasure to stoke his efforts here, believe me, but I’m just trying to be fair. Look at the kind of things Nick has actually asserted:

        “There is no evidence that Schellnhuber is doing anything other than retiring in the normal course of events.”

        “If there is any evidence of his being “forced out”, please present it.”

        “I simply said there is no evidence of any kind that this is other than a simple retirement, as announced. Simply true, there isn’t. If you want to “call me out” with any effect, provide some.”

        So Nick is making a negative claim and he has the presumption of the null hypothesis on his side—let’s not sink to Trenberthian depths by pretending it’s the other way round!

  9. change of the guard reported in Australia 23 Feb:

    23 Feb: SBS: AAP: Revolution needed in climate change fight
    Radical change in the next 20 years is needed to achieve climate goals agreed to by some 200 nations.
    Both said “revolutions” were needed to tackle climate change, such as capturing greenhouse gas emissions from power plants that burn fossil fuels or by reforming agriculture, where meat production and fertilisers are big sources of greenhouse gases.
    “When Germany is not in a position to phase out coal can we expect that Poland or Indonesia or Vietnam or Turkey … can phase out coal?” Ottmar Edenhofer, new co-director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, told Reuters.

    Edenhofer, formerly the institute’s chief economist, and new co-director Johan Rockstrom, a Swedish scientist, said governments were far from achieving the core goal in the 2015 Paris Agreement of limiting a rise in global average temperatures to “well below” two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial times.
    “We have just literally 20 years to either succeed or fail” in the goals of getting the planet on a more sustainable path, Rockstrom said in a joint telephone interview.

    The University of Pennsylvania rated the Potsdam Institute as the world’s top environment policy think-tank this month…
    Rockstrom and Edenhofer were named by the institute on Friday to succeed Hans Joachim Schellnhuber in October.

      • Ron, it’s a new way of charting getting old – noting that these deadlines go by without issue. I believe there is a scientific study to be done in all this. When the first wave of climateering retirements were approaching, there was a tightening of the schedule for tipping points and end of world alarm. Wadhams in UK in his dotage was clearing out Arctic ice in a matter of tens of months (and he feared assassination by sceptics). Hansen had the Westside Highway in NY under water by 2000, it’s still little different today than in 1988. Al Gore, striking up the band on the Climate Titanic over the years keeps missing deadlines, Prince Charles etc…. Karl was proactive about it: on the eve of his retirement he simply scuttled a two decade extremely damaging Pause in warming by adjustment even as alarmists were crafting 50 reasons why a pause of several decades was the calm before the storm.

  10. The Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) mission statement….models..models and more models. Better off hiring IT and Programmers by the sounds of it.

    Like many areas of life today, current scientific research is characterized by an increasing trend toward digitalization; that is, the collection, storage, processing and distribution of data, information and knowledge by means of computer systems.

    For tasks which are related to the organization and management of research, or to scientific collaboration and the publication of results, this trend holds true in general for all fields of science.

    There are, however, areas in modern research, like high energy physics, computational biology, astrophysics, climate research and many others, where scientific progress is directly dependent on the availability of most advanced and powerful computer systems.

    At the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), where numerical experiments and data analysis conducted on advanced computer systems form – alongside theory – the basis of research, this is indeed the case.

    At PIK the information technology (IT) infrastructure, that is the entirety of computers, storage media, data networks, system and application software, may be seen as a unique, complex and valuable scientific instrument.

    Scientists need this instrument to create and further develop mathematical models, covering various aspect of the earth system and human society as well as the interactions between both. These models are translated into algorithms and in turn into program code in order to be used for numerical experimentation or data analysis.

    It is the task of the IT Services Group (ITS) to design, maintain and further develop this important scientific instrument.

    The main objective of the group is to support science by providing a comprehensive set of IT services, available to all scientists, guests and collaborators of the institute, which shall be balanced, resilient, flexible, efficient, secure and easy to use.


  11. Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t it Schellnhuber who claimed to be culpable for the infamy of the “2.0 Degrees” claim? Back in the mists of time, when global-warmers had already convinced themselves that global warming was always going to be bad, but they didn’t actually have a number for “this amount of warming is going to be terrible”? Because they didn’t know (just as they still don’t, today).

    They thus needed a number to frighten the world, and an arse from which to pull said number. And Schellnhuber was on hand to provide both. It’s not as well know to the general public as the hockey-stick, but scientifically it is really just as bad, if not worse. That’s quite an indictment to put on one’s scientific gravestone.

  12. This very amusing. Einstein published his papers in the PNAS because they didn’t use referees. He was outraged that the Physical Review did and refused to publish there insisting that everyone should be able to read and criticize his work. His attitude was the same as the German journals of the early twentieth century, better to publish an incorrect atricle than to supress a correct one.

    • The problem isn’t Schellnhuber publishing lots of trashy papers, it’s the suppression of papers by others who disagree with the AGW crowd.

    • Yeah Paul, that Einstein was a disgrace to science, wasn’t he! Knowing this arcane detail, you must be aware that the world’s scientists were dismissive of his ideas. He was rather a lone wolf against a zealous gatekeeping “consensus”. It reminds me of another more topical issue.

    • PNAS has since its origin allowed NAS members to arrange their own referees. They did for Einstein, and I assume they did for Schellnhuber. They did for Lindzen too. All NAS members. It’s not a special privilege for climate activists.

      • Except that Einstein and Lindzen have real and precious few scientific things to say and they say them well. Schellnhuber used it as a bullhorn for advertisement of a political science-global governance putsch.

        Two things Nick that are needed to differentiate yourself as a serious scientist. I wouldn’t even offer these to you if I didn’t feel you are scientifically literate and had a ‘take’ which is worth arguing about often enough.

        a) You demean yourself in defending every global warming “joe” simply because he supports, even mindlessly, the AGW narrative. Over half of them are sociologists and social psychologists who, incidentally, are missing out on the juiciest research their miserable corrupted disciplines have ever had come their way. There are empty contrarian jerks within what goes as the sceptics contingent, too, that make sceptics cringe. Some of the most strident are ineducable and are even banned from this site as thread bomber, empty vessels.
        b) You must see some small things that thoughtful sceptics have contributed to the subject that is worthy of some wee revision of your thinking and maybe a nod or two. You must have softened your worry over the years a tad about a galloping catastrophe that will swallow half the life on the planet after experiencing an 18yr Pause, warming essentially at one third of forecasts, even accepting suspiciously jiggered temps and warming rates.

        What do you think of the greening of the planet, expansion of forests (habitat), doubling of harvests, no rise in wildfires, tornadoes, hurricanes, floods (apparently even declines in some of these). Are you not surprised (if not dismayed) by PIK being taken over by an economist and an agronomist? What about Melbourne U climate research also accepting these these two to run their show. What about journal gatekeeping, climategate, whitewashed investigations of it? Some of the temperature record fiddles? Some warming proponent climate scientists have walked the hype back a bit – it gives people respect for them as scientists.

  13. Who takes the Academy of something (sciences, medicine) more seriously than the Academy Awards anyway?

    The so called scientists (as in “pro science” as in “Trump is anti science”), so called atheists have many deities. Remove gods from atheism!

  14. Bengt, You are correct. There will be no let up in Potsdam propaganda with Rockström and Edenhofer in charge and Rahmstorf and Leverman will still be producing their scare stories. Schellnhuber had become a figure of fun. He retires with a nice prize though, 50 million Japanese Yen, approaching half a milion dollars.

    Menwhile Potsdam will step up their campaign:

    “bringing together natural sciences and social sciences stronger than ever”

    Ottmar Edenhofer has for some time been Deputy Director of Potsdam to Schellnhuber and was their Chief Economist. He is now described as a Co-Director. He is also Director of the Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change (MCC), founded jointly by Stiftung Mercator and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. https://www.mcc-berlin.net/en/institute/team.html

    Potsdam has also “invaded” Australia:

    http://climatecollege.unimelb.edu.au/our-people: Meinshausen is a former WWF and Greenpeace activist and a product of ETH, Oxford ECI and PIK.


  15. From the PIK press release re the leader shift:
    “The well-established climate physics and energy economic computer simulations at PIK are to be increasingly supplemented in the coming years by the use of artificial intelligence to analyze complex dynamic processes as well as big data as can be found in satellite observations and ice drilling cores, but also in financial markets and social media such as Facebook.”

    Artifical intelligence to analyze facebook!

    I detect a certain lack of human intelligence.

  16. There are many more important decisions in Germany. Environment Minister Hendriks resigns and Schulze becomes the new Minister of the Environment.
    She is an avowed member of the Friends of Fossil Power Plants. In the “Spiegel”:

    “Greenpeace pointed out Schulze’s membership of the mining union IG BCE, which advocates long-term use of German coal-fired power plants, and on its website advocates new coal-fired power plants to “continuously reduce emissions from fossil-fueled power plants.” Greenpeace called on the future minister to quickly prove her independence from the coal lobby in the new office. ”

    But I think Greenpeace was wrong about that. She will not do anything like that. The SPD is fighting against the AFD for survival. If the unions also fall away as supporters, the SPD will be a dwarf party in the future.

    Presumably Flaßbarth, Secretary of State in the Ministry of the Environment, will have to take the hat off, as did Schellnhuber, the gray eminence of climate rescue. At least I can not imagine anything else.
    The influence of PIK on the Berlin government and on Merkel has declined steadily in recent years anyway. PIK is barely perceived in the political discussion in this country or rather, not taken seriously. There can come as a new boss who wants, the climate goals have died, thanks to the new party AFD and rethinking in the FDP and now in the SPD. Not to mention the CSU as sister party of the CDU. Merkel no longer has the political basis for senseless unilateral climate protection measures.

  17. Replaced by Johan Rockström. I think this is a step backwards into more climate hysteria. Rockström the antropocene man is an agronomist and is even more crazy than Schellnhuber. He is nearly the only “climate scientists” that is interviewed repeatedly in Swedish media when it comes to climate change. There he talks about Anthropocene, Earth boundaries, that it is even worse than we thought and other falsehoods.

    Swedish people are the most brainwashed people when it comes to climate hysteria. Remember, Bert Bohlin who played tennis on a regular basis with Olof Palme, the then Swedish prime minister, was the foremost scientist who spread the CAGW idea into the UN and among rolling politicians of the world.

  18. pat (March 9, 5:54 pm): Johan Rockström holds a degree in some discipline closely connected with agriculture. He has no knowledge whatsoever of the physics or chemistry of the atmosphere, so he is eminently fit to lead the Potsdam Institute.

  19. Interesting article about Mr Schellnhuber here:
    After reading that it becomes unfathomable how the current Pope could wish to be guided by this fellow but maybe that tells us something about the current Pope. If he is determined to be different from all previous Popes, he’s sure found a way of doing it. I doubt that wise and intelligent Popes like John-Paul II and Benedict XVI would have sougfht this chap’s guidance.

  20. Schellnhuber along with Merkel belong to this fine stock of leaders Germany bestow on the world once every 2 or 3 generations.
    The German ruling class has proved in the past to be among the most toxic poison to humanity, and the current bunch is up to the task of the previous one.

Leave a Reply - if your comment doesn't appear right away, it may have been intercepted by the SPAM filter. Please have patience while our moderation team examines it.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s