By P Gosselin
Refusing to comment on his past alarmist climate predictions…
More than two decades ago, renowned climate scientist Mojib Latif of Germany’s Max Planck Instiute for Meterology, based in Hamburg, warned the climate-ambulance chasing Der Spiegel that, due to global warming, Germany would likely no longer experience harsh winters with heavy frost and snow as it had in previous decades.
Spiegel reported climate scientist’s prediction of harsh winters disappearing due to man’s activities. Image cropped here.
In light of the current severe winter weather in Germany, Latif’s statements are facing renewed scrutiny. An article appearing in the Berliner Zeitung here notes that Latif’s prophecy has “aged poorly” and he appears to want to have nothing to do with them.
Hiding from the media
According to the Berliner Zeitung, the former Max Planck Institute scientist has recently stopped responding to media inquiries regarding his past claims. Critics argue that such drastic predictions damage the credibility of climate science, while others point out that extreme weather events—including intense cold snaps—can still occur within the broader context of climate change.
No Easter snow as well
Latif also claimed he recalled snow in the past occurring at Easter time, implying this no longer happens today. But that too was a false claim. perhaps prof. Latif will answer phone calls in April?
Oh dear, another case of Viner’s syndrome.
Issuing a fatuous and most improbable yet highly alarming prediction; now proven to be utterly ludicrous. Why do they do it? Is it just arrogance and hubris? Or is it blind faith?
“…such drastic predictions damage the credibility of climate science“
That right there is the Friday Funny.
“Why do they do it? Is it just arrogance and hubris? Or is it blind faith?“
Likely one of those, yes.
But ultimately, it’s stupidity.
Climate scientists, as in all other professions have stupid people.
And it does not invalidate the majority.
But when stupid people in other professions make stupid claims and/or stupid predictions, the sensible people in those professions tell them they’re wrong. Where was the “sensible majority” of climate scientists? Why didn’t they make their voices heard?
Being cancelled…
You mean like Judith Curry and the rest of the folks in the side bar?
Indeed.
Stephen Koonin
absolute cowards
“Where was the “sensible majority” of climate scientists? Why didn’t they make their voices heard?”
They where represented in the authourship within the IPCC’s ARs and anyway the media are not interested – they want sensationalism. Which is how we get to know about his (and Wadham’s) stupidity.
But actually there was a push-back…..
https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/53852/pdf/#:~:text=Sea%20ice%20prediction,of%20the%20broader%20scientific%20community.
“The witness Prof. Wadhams expressed the
view that the Arctic would be ice free by 2015
(i.e. from next year the ice extent would be at
or below the ice-free line in the figure). The
other panel witnesses (Profs. Rapley,
Shepherd, Feltham and Drs. Bacon and
Hawkins) consider this view to be extreme
and unlikely, and it is unrepresentative of the
broader scientific community”
People here love it, as they think it represents the consensus as represented in the IPCC’s report and thing is sketics* wold not have known that because,
a) they dont want to,
b) becasue they wouldn’t look unless someone like me posted it here.
And what happened to the “sensible majority” in the Summary for Policymakers? You know, that completely un-scientific political summary.
The UN demonstrated its self-serving lust for power & control over everything by overlaying the IPCC Summary for Policymakers grifters on the science assessment groups’ reportage.
(Mind you, some of the “scientists” who were the lead authors on the assessments groups were out-and-out agw grifters.)
You omitted, presumedly intentionally, the media influence.
Climate scientists
Failed clairvoyants, Jacks of all trades.
Really, have you ever met any?
And with your bias would you be able to judge (Dunning-Kruger permitting)?
And if you did would you presume they were all like that?
Give me a logical, common-sense reason.
There isn’t one, bar your obvious hatred of them.
It’s like assuming all doctors are incompetent because of a rogue one being brought to book over incompetence.
Or that all nurses are like Lucy Letby.
It’s just cognitive dissonace at play.
You wont see it, but it’s the classic Serengeti strategy.
Disparage one and by inference they are all the same.
A lame attempt to keep your world-view safe and all the time you have to dig deeper into the rabbit-hole.
Like an addiction when more of whatever, is needed to have the same effect. All aided by hugs and kisses at places such as this echo-chamber.
In the end you resort to the incompetence/fraud attack (as can be seen here as the attack-dogs swarm in on me becsue I called Wadhams an idiot and dared to say the obvious that there are such elsewhere).
… and you all come back with but all climate scientists are …. not possibly knowing that but badly relying/wanting (on) it.
Perhaps you could name us some good ones. You know, the ones who didn’t hide their data, methods, and code from people not within their inner circle. The ones who didn’t use “novel statistical methods” to achieve a pre-conceived result, instead of following the data.
There were some good ones in the working groups. But when the politicians rewrote and, in many cases, reversed the findings of the WGs in the Summary for Policy Makers and then forced the WGs to rework their reports to agree with the SPM many of them quit the IPCC. See here:
46 ‘Climate Change Denying’ Statements Made By Former IPCC Scientists – Electroverse
“Really, have you ever met any?”
No and no one ever will. That moniker is a self-assigned title, not earned.
In some cases it is a sobriquet, but that nuance distinction is so often lost on so many.
Ooohhh who took the jam out of your doughnut, Tones?
Always trying to defend the indefensible…
… like the total mess that is the Met Office surface stations.
Climate Scientists or climate scientists. The former are always in the news, and some are principle authors of E-Mails in the ClimateGate series. The latter are just trying to do their jobs.
so would you explain why you are still here??
In need of your next ego-boost Banton for your failed points of view and your past hopeless UK Met office ?
I have yet to meet anyone with a University Degree in “Climate Science” now have I found a single school offering such a degree.
Given the number of scientific and engineering disciplines one would have to master, getting a PhD in “Climate Science” would take more than a single lifetime.
While I have never MET a Climate Science degree holder, there must be some out there, since there are least 7 schools in the US that offer it as a major. Check the link below. (copy & paste into your browser to make it a URL)
https://collegedunia.com/usa/sciences/climate-universities?custom_params=%5Bview%3Atable%5D
The problem here is, it’s not only a “climate scientist”, but one of the leading ones in Germany, often interviewed, often presented in the media. His statements were considered as the ultimative truth.
Btw, he represents the majority.
Then blame the media for reporting it …. as that is “grist to the mill” for the media.
Sensationalism sells.
Look the IPCC isn’t his Mother or anyone elses Mother.
It’s down to individuals to investigate the truth/facts.
I am sure others criticsied him but you did not see it reported.
ANd you certainly wouldn’t have looked for it would you?
Be honest (LOL)
Unfortunately there are peeps who have taken *sides* in the matter and others (prob the majority) don’t care.
bla bla bla – as usual
You ignored the “Jeff Alberts” request.
I don’t really expect a response.
Other readers thought you’d asked an important question.
(a week or so later, the comment ranks a +43 on the blog-o-scale)
You have taken sides.
Pot meet kettle.
‘Sensationalism sells.’
Not always. To be ‘sensational’ may be a necessary condition for widespread publication, but without at least the tacit approval of our government and media elites (aka, the Left), it is not a sufficient condition.
For example, one could rightly point out that there is absolutely no evidence in the geologic record (carbonate or ice cores) that CO2 has ever had any influence on climate. However, the absence of such evidence, while certainly ‘sensational’, has obviously been suppressed to date because it flies in the face of one of the Left’s primary narratives.
On the contrary, one person or fact can and often does invalidate the majority.
Good one.
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
Richard P. Feynman
Complete rubbish.
Try visiting the “Flat Earth society (ies)” website FI.
FFS
https://theflatearthsociety.org/home/
So you are saying that any idiot/contrarian can invalidate the majority of experts, even experts (or the likes of Monckton) degrees in the Classics and Journalism?
Distopia made real
Again FFS
Is that your home adress? 🫣
I don’t wonder anymore 🤣
Einstein’s quote.
Your comprehension of the written word is insufficient. “Contrarians” don’t necessarily invalidate anything. Facts or empirical evidence smashes incorrect theories.Feynman’s statements on this was precise.
AGW has always been an artifact of credentialism and its opinions, not empirical facts.
You do understand that the word “can” does not mean “will” or “does”, right?
“Ask” Einstein
Why 100 scientists to disprouve me, one is enough.
We used to say: “Another beautiful theory shot down by an ugly fact”
“Climate scientists, as in all other professions have stupid people.
And it does not invalidate the majority.”
But the vast majority of climate scientists are stupid people. Or, at the very least, incredibly weak individuals who have just gone along with this whole manmade global warming hoax.
Every alarmist climate prediction made over the last hundreds of years is simply natural variation. Yet, almost the entire climate science community has treated these predictions as if they are going to cause a mass extinction.
Just look at how Climategate was handled. The community simply said, ‘nothing to see here, move along now’.
And what I find so ironic about all of these silly catastrophic predictions is that we’re in the interglacial period of an Ice Age. A few degrees of warming is a good thing. Higher CO2 is a great thing for plant life.
Yet there is no mass effort to point these ‘inconvenient’ facts when we’re continually bombarded by silly predictions and models which all end up being wrong.
“But the vast majority of climate scientists are stupid people.”
I would not make such a claim without verification.
Some are true believers.
Some are in it to make fortunes.
Some are in it for hubris, ego, self-gratification.
Some are in it for a paycheck having mortgages, etc.
Some recognize that grant solicitations often define expected conclusions and if one takes the grant and protests that the results cannot be achieved, they are out in the cold, blacklisted, and no longer able to work in their field.
Now, a certain definition of stupid can be applied to make the statement true.
Stupid has definitions that include stunned, amazed, stupefied, and confused.
Ignoring the common definition of lacking intellectual acuity, the word could apply to the vast majority.
I think that mostly, it’s just that basic human proclivity to –
“go along to get along”
in common-purpose groups.
I recognized this behavior many many times in my corporate work days, especially in middle-management executives who were intent on avoiding any controversy that could bring concerning attention to them from “the chiefs”.
The most sickening demonstration of this was a branch manager who at a national managers conference, seconded a resolution to increase the number of female software developers in our teams.
This guy was always the first to rant & rave about how the women employees were the last to arrive at work and the first to leave, took many and long coffee breaks, the ones who complained the most about having to re-work coding, etc etc.
But when it seemed that the management group’s ideas were headed in particular direction, he was ever so keen to be seen as a supporter.
This for me epitomizes what has happened with climate “science”.
I don’t understand why you ignored my second sentence, “Or, at the very least, incredibly weak individuals who have just gone along with this whole manmade global warming hoax.”
That second sentence covers your rebuttal.
As for ‘true believers’, I place them squarely in the stupid camp. There’s more than enough evidence to cast significant doubt on the concept that CO2 causes warming. Further, CO2 is a critical gas for life on earth. Even today’s level of CO2 is too low for optimum plant growth.
The other three examples are amply covered by my second sentence.
Your last statement is technically true, taken alone. But just like so-called good cops who won’t criticize their bad brothers become bad cops, so do so-called good climate scientists become bad climate scientists when they refuse to criticize the bad predictions.
Riding Hanlon’s Razor BS as cheap excuse again?
Stupidity, as natural process, is being systematically eliminated as result of a natural selective process the higher we climb up the hierarchy.
Maybe not in politics, but in science for sure.
And it is pretty hard to survive as engineer or scientists if you are stupid.
In terms of Mojib Latif we can not exclude stupidity as he was one of Germanies first paras… diversity hires and TV personalities.
Yet, the stupidity excuse won’t work,
as even American diversity ” prodigies ” like DaGross Tyson, who have proven time and time again how dumb they are outside of their field of expertise, are quite capable within their profession.
We can exclude stupidity for other reasons,
as this ” stupidity ” always only happens in favor of the great narrative- never ever against it.
Just as DaGross Tyson suddenly forgot what a woman is Latif realized that end of snow
is the way to go.
If it were stupidity there ‘d be a 50:50 chance for stupid to miss the big narrative and argue against it, but while these people have a 100% failure rate with their big predictions they have a 100% success rate in ass kissing.
That’s not stupidity.
That’s corruption strategical prostitution,
especially when a guy like Latif who was alreadya grown ass man during the Ice Age scare comes up with such predictions.
“Stupidity, as natural process, is being systematically eliminated as result of a natural selective process the higher we climb up the hierarchy.”
Not sure I see this happening. Natural selection and other evolutionary processes are often applied to cultural and institutional changes, I say ‘incorrectly’. Each generation restarts with the same capabilities because IF it doesn’t affect breeding THEN it doesn’t affect the next generation.
The prospect of evolution in human terms through un-natural selection is a topic science mostly abandoned between 1940 and 1970 because the topic can’t be mentioned without looking and feeling icky.
Pop culture will have to look at eugenics again when rich people start using genetic engineering to give their non-Swedish kids fashionable eye colors.
“Stupidity, as natural process, is being systematically eliminated as result of a natural selective process the higher we climb up the hierarchy.”
Stupidity is a psychological phenomenon and not a genetic one as applied to intelligent people ……
Why Intelligent People Become Stupid? | Bonhoeffer’s Theory
There is no such thing as consensus in science, idiot.
There has to be, idiot.
As the science is done by people (people are not perfect, yes even scientists), and they come to different conclusions from studies in different locations at different times and sometimes the evidence does not jibe.
If there was not a consensus of evidence assembled then no conclusion could be reached, and all of science would stop and we’d go back to the Stone Age.
But in this case that is eactly what you want isn’t it?
So you’re certain that this only applies to climate scientists? eh
No, peeps are peeps no matter what they do.
We discover a planet-wide theat and ignore it because you think it shouldn’t be on the basis of a consenus of the data.
FFS
BTW: please feel free to use another ad hom on returning.
Consensus is agreement of opinions.
Agreeing irrefutable test results are irrefutable is not in the nature of consensus.
consensus, n: agreement in the judgment or opinion reached by a group as a whole
consensus, n: harmony of people’s opinions
Ant is essentially saying that consensus of baseless brain-washed “opinion” is what climate “science” is based on.
We can all agree with that.
“…and they come to different conclusions from studies in different locations at different times and sometimes the evidence does not jibe…”
You mean the science is not settled? Who woudda thunk.
It’s not stupidity, it’s promotion of the propaganda.
Show us where the “propaganda” is on display in the IPCC ARs please.
Otherwise you are just blowing the usual smoke with this particular Serengti strategy attempt.
He was an idiot to say it even if he believed it.
His opinion is not in the IPCC AR’s.
And therefore his comment cannot be “propaganda” on behalf of them.
In fact it misrepresents the science in their reports.
But of course to the conspiracy minded it’s propaganda.
I do get that you know!
The IPCC’s summaries are universally propaganda that twists the science to pushing the climate agenda.
Pretending otherwise is being totally naïve… and denying reality
The majority invalidate themselves by other means.
Arrogance and hubris abound. Blind faith is indoctrinated.
“But ultimately, it’s stupidity.”
And they keep doing it time and time and time and time again.
What does that tell you.!
That majority, including their professional organizations, allowed ‘the consensus of scientists’ meme to flourish, and the notion that ‘the science is settled’. They threw their lot in with the ‘stupid people’ of the misnamed climate scientists. They do not get a pass. They, too, are invalidated.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”
Upton Sinclair.
“while others point out that extreme weather events—including intense cold snaps—can still occur within the broader context of climate change.”
In other words, things will happen just as they always have, but now we can blame it all on humans, unless they repent.
That’s the problem. The theory is unfalsifiable. They can’t tell us what will happen, won’t happen, and often, can’t tell us what did happen. They keep monkeying with the past record. They shift the goalposts. If you ask them to show you the evidence, the evidence is of stuff that happens naturally, anyway.
There is no “theory” at all.
Just a bizarre belief that adding CO2 to air makes thermometers hotter.
Rather like the natural philosophers of the day who had a touching (and totally unwarranted belief) in phlogiston.
Or caloric, where it took the experiments of Joule to convince Lord Kelvin that Kelvin’s belief was mistaken. So Kelvin, a tolerably smart fellow, was absolutely wrong. He was also absolutely wrong about the age of the Earth, but that’s another story.
While he might not have been completely correct in his prophecy, in general, most of continental Europe and the UK has experienced less harsh winters and few Easter snow days, in recent decades. While that’s a fact and doesn’t necessarily prove anything one way or the other, it means that the general prediction hasn’t been too far off the mark. This is true of the Viner predictions also “snow becoming increasingly rare”. This has happened – no arguments!
Now, all of you ostriches that are sitting with your down votes at the ready, read very carefully my next statement…..
This general trend in no way validates anything at all in terms of climate change. It might be a bit like making the claim that because a child doesn’t grow as quickly for a year or so, his/her development is being hindered by too much fresh air and exercise. It’s much more likely that the child’s development has entered a temporary slow down due to natural/ hereditary factors, and that all the fresh air and exercise has nothing to do with the pause in development….etc, etc.
But please my friends, remember, one or a handful of harsher winters doesn’t disprove a prediction of a general trend of warming winters. Let’s just be real.
People who called me a heretic or denier now just don’t want to discuss the subject.
But the UK is still full speed ahead on its path to de-industrialization and poverty.
We are in a race with Germany to wreck our economies.
France will be able to sell you electricity thanks to its nuclear power plants… or what’s left of them… Unless the environmentalists raze the infrastructure and install rows of wind turbines from the Moselle to the Côtes-d’Armor. Then, I’ll join my ancestors in eastern France and scratch the earth with my fingernails to dig up a few shriveled tubers during the long, icy winter months (which are supposed to no longer exist. No doubt my denialist imagination is playing tricks on me and making me turn up the heat even though it’s 25 degrees outside.)
When do the French nuclear power plants have to start shutting down owing to their age? How many new ones are being built in France?
Who says they will have to shut down because of age? French PWRs have nothing in common with British AGRs.In fact, no other reactor in the world has the particular life-limiting flaws of the British AGRs.
And if the UK and the EU wreck their economies, don’t expect America to protect you from an aggressive Russia.
Did Russia invade France? I thought that was Germany. I’m sure Russia would have given it a try, but geography was prohibitive through most history.
I remember a poster of Napoleon’s troop count diminishing as he marched them into a Russian winter and think… If Russia sent an army of young men into a French summer, would the army ever return? I imagine a version of that old troop count poster with bloody casualties replaced by decisions to bury military uniforms on the beach and enjoy watching sailboats float by under warm sun.
Only once, after Napoleon’s defeat at Waterloo. Tue Russian occupation lasted from 1815 to 1818.
ThE Russian occupation *
We absolutely must rearm, that’s undeniable. But given the state of Europe (a multitude of countries incapable of agreeing on anything), we shouldn’t expect the creation of a European army. France possesses nuclear weapons (thanks again to General de Gaulle, to whom the country owes so much), so attacking one of our allies is rather delicate. (I read a review of House of Dynamite, Kathryn Bigelow’s latest film, in which the author seriously compared a nuclear holocaust to global warming. These people really have serious issues.)
Otherwise, the EU frankly makes my blood boil. It’s supposed to be a major trading power, but Denmark buys its fighter jets from the United States instead of ordering Rafales from France. I struggle to understand how anyone can still believe the EU works. Or that it ever worked, for that matter. Perhaps it had a certain coherence and usefulness when this great machine still only included five or six powerful countries.
They have already let hordes of Islamists in… Russia is the least of their problems.
Exactly. You’re not likely to get stabbed by a Russian as you leave your house, whether in Paris or Nantes. Although, Chechens can be very violent. Mais là encore, c’est moins une question de géographique que de culture.
I’m not a Putin worshipper, but we have to face reality. On the metro, in the street, you can be literally slaughtered for a glance.
The far left will always find a greater threat than Islamism—Russia, climate change, the white patriarchy, etc. On a 24-hour news channel, a journalist said she was terrified by, get this: Catholic extremism. Okay, fine, whatever. In a Coluche sketch, that would probably have made me laugh. But this is absolutely squalid.
A few years ago, a man named Yves Cochet, former Minister of Ecology and conviced catastrophist said that Western countries should have fewer children to limit their environmental impact and, at the same time, make room for migrants in France. Needless to say, this prospect doesn’t exactly thrill me. I’m speechless.
I feel sorry for my country, my continent, and my culture.
In business it seems the CEO is 60s (born in US Vietnam war era), management is 50s (born at end of US cold war era), and workers peak in their 40s (born at start of Internet era). The kind of CEO and management who push weird anachronisms like “Catholic extremism” are aging out right now. It must be so strange to be a kid educated at a series of schools that attacks ghosts, then get a job at a newspaper that demands articles attacking ghosts, then eat lunch with friends that can’t seem to stop talking about how bad the ghosts are.
Did the new pope not pray over a chunk of glacier ice? What exactly do the old media CEOs want?
A race already won by Australia. There is no heavy industry in Australia that is not getting Soviet era style support.
Doing a “Michael Mann”…in more ways than one…
Please stop bolding for no reason.
I understand the good doctor’s father is an imam who set up a mosque in Germany. As a tribute the following should no longer be referred to as climate predictions… but as climate fatwas
Arctic ice cap climate fatwa issued by [Gore, Maslowski,] Wadhams…
Wadhams in 2014 predicted that by 2020 “summer sea ice to disappear”
The Climate Liars have wised up and gotten out of the predictions business, or at least pushed them ahead by decades, by which time they will be either retired or dead. So, what do they do with those who previously made predictions which have been hilariously wrong? Why, throw them under the bus, or handwavingly climatesplain them away.
Being a Climate Liar means never having to say you’re sorry.
The latest instantiation is “trans-reality alarmist.”
🙂
Latif.
Funny. Here on the South Shore of Lake Erie, we woke to freezing fog and ice-covered streets this morning. Air temp: 21F. That’s on top of the four or five inches of snow that fell a couple of days ago.
Just walking is hazardous.
Here in Butler county the snow is coming down again. Where is AlGore;The Goreacle to prove me wrong? 😉
Friday Caption
Net Zero will work, trust me…
👍 👍
How do you get emojis to work here?
in windows right-click in the text field and the option should appear, or the win + period from the keyboard. Don’t know about other platforms. 🤓
That and similar statements were instrumental in propelling the Bundes Republik on the disastrous Energie Wende path, destroying the basis of a modern industrial society. Latif and his fellow travellers ought to be prosecuted for misleading the nation and locked up in an unheated prison cell. Perhaps it will happen someday.
Can any legal experts here explain why lawsuits are not brought against such predictions/predictors as they were in the case of the 6 Italian geologists who made erroneous predictions in the L’Aquila earthquake event? The geologists’ convictions were later overturned on appeal, but the bureaucrat’s was not.
https://www.science.org/content/article/why-italian-earthquake-scientists-were-exonerated
Please, no suing people for being wrong.
They are not stupid enough to make predictions. It is always “projections”. An important legal distinction.
The projections of Nostra-Dumb-Arse.
“Prediction is hard, especially about the future.” — Yogi Berra
No, the correct approach according The Al Gore School of Climate Change Grooming is to get louder and more outspoken and not indicate mistakes even when all the predictions become ridiculous. It’s also the M. Mann tactic.
Typical. First the climate alarmists scream their forecasts from the roof tops through amplified megaphones. Now they won’t even take media inquiries. No apologies, no admission that that they were wrong. “This is the way the world ends, Not with a bang but a whimper.”
Or with thunderous applause.
Oh, wait, that is the end of a Republic and Freedom.
Aren’t we supposed to drop the hypothesis if what it predicts is falsified?
True believers don’t do that !!!
They double down and accuse you of being a stupid heretic; all religions have resorted to that method for centuries.
They’ve made it unfalsifiable, that’s the thing. Whatever happens, or doesn’t, is evidence that capitalism and its primary fuel sources are dangerous and need to be destroyed.
In other words the climate alarmists really don’t know which way the weather/climate is going to turn from one year to the next. Except if they wanted to keep their credibility, they’d repeat the opinion of J.P. Morgan more than a century ago when he was asked what he thought about the direction of the stock market. His answer: “It’ll fluctuate”. Likewise with the whole environment; it’ll show its usual annual variability, so there’s no need for panic.
Didn’t some other “expert” predict about a decade ago that British children would soon be unaware what snow would be like by some time about now? So has it stopped snowing in the UK lately? And back in the 1960s after a few below-normal winters on the Canadian Prairies, residents there were told that these were the prelude to an oncoming ice age, which somehow never developed. So it’s the old story of alarmism and exaggerations which make for good media sensationalism but have no basis in fact, and the WUWT site does a good job of listing the many failed predictions about climate catastrophes that have never occurred but that turned out to be also dead wrong.
….and you tell that to younguns today and you think they’ll believe you?
How first-class degrees became meaningless