By P Gosselin
A new post from the German climate science blog Klimanachrichten titled: “The Hallucinated Acceleration: How the PIK Crafts a Climate Catastrophe Out of Data Noise” sharply criticizes recent findings and public statements released by the climate ultra-alarmist Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK).
Image created by Grok AI
The central thesis of the Klimanachrichten article is that the PIK (and specifically certain high-profile scientists associated with it) is interpreting natural fluctuations in climate data—what the Klimanachrichten calls “data noise”—as evidence of a permanent and accelerating climate catastrophe. Klimanachrichten argues that these “accelerations” are statistically insignificant or within the realm of historical natural variability.
Klimanachrichten writes that the PIK uses selective data periods (“cherry-picking”) to create the illusion of a sudden tip in the climate system. By focusing on short-term trends or specific regional anomalies, the blog argues that the PIK ignores longer-term contexts that might show a more stable or cyclical pattern.
The “tipping point” narrative
A significant portion of the Klimanachrichten post is dedicated to debunking the concept of “tipping points” (Kipppunkte). The PIK misuses these concepts as a psychological tool to instill fear and influence policy than as a strictly proven scientific reality. Klimanachrichten describes these tipping points as theoretical constructs that lack robust empirical backing in the current observational data.
Ideological bias and “science-policy” blurring
The blog post concludes the PIK has moved away from objective science and toward political activism. It argues that the institute’s primary goal is to provide scientific-sounding justifications for radical economic and social transformations (the “Great Transformation”), and little else.
Media amplification
Klimanachrichten also criticizes the mainstream media for uncritically adopting the PIK’s “alarmist” narratives, often as settled science. Journalists fail to ask critical questions about the underlying data, leading to a public perception of a climate “emergency” that Klimnachrichten believes is not supported by the raw evidence.
Conclusion
The Klimnachricten post summarizes its position by stating that the perceived “acceleration” of climate change is a result of flawed statistical modeling and institutional bias. It calls for a return to a more “sober” analysis of climate data that accounts for natural cycles and acknowledges the limitations of current climate models. The author’s ultimate conclusion is that the “climate catastrophe” is a narrative construction rather than a data-driven inevitability.
Fooling around — the German equivalent of “cherry picking” involves raisins. It’s fascinating how little trivia like this changes. I wonder if other English-speakers use something besides cherries, and if other German speaker use something besides raisins.
Cherry picking
Dutchie here. It’s either selective shopping (selectief winkelen) or taking the raisins out of the porridge (krenten uit de pap halen)
I like your raisins and porridge one better than our cherry picking.
Who the hell puts raisins in their porridge? For that matter, who the hell eats porridge (apart from the Scots)? Dreadful stuff – fit only for horses!
How do you know what porridge even means to a Dutchie writing in English?
Raisins in hot morning cereal (oatmeal, Cream of Wheat, etc) is dynamite. Others work well too – cranberries, blueberries.
“End of times” predictions have a long history of gaining adherents for otherwise plain vanilla causes.
“Journalists fail to ask critical questions about the underlying data,
German climate science blog “
_____________________________________________________
Quoting a blog isn’t the best way to make your argument. If the blog provides links to the underlying data and examples, that’s a different story.
My favorite example: Climate science never says, journalists never ask, and policy makers
never find out that methane’s effect on climate is, for practical purposes, nonexistent.
We don’t need no steenking data-
Double danger? Climate change, El Niño push Earth ‘beyond its limits’
I have always thought that if the result of you maths changes a lot, when you change your end points a little. Then your method is not appropriate for what you are trying to calculate.
Reminds me of an argument Judith Curry used to make about planning for extreme weather in the future. She stated that if the infrastructure was upgraded to handle the extreme weather of the past we would be in pretty good shape.
That happens where (green?) politicians control the funding of research institutes.
It’s all a matter of perspective. If you were born this morning and knew nothing about how the world worked, by two or three in the afternoon you would most likely be alarmed by the steadily rising temperature. You’d project the pattern into the future and think “We’re toast.” You would have no concept of the natural cycle that occurs daily.
We have very short lives relative to the Earth, and so we see a trend happening and quite naturally project it out to infinity, ignoring the fact that EVERYTHING is cyclical. Enjoy our little warm spell while it lasts, because it won’t We are still very much in an ice age, and ice will return, the only question is whether in 500 years or 2500. Either way, it will be the worst thing ever to happen to humanity. The last thing we need to worry about is a little unexpected warmth.
That’s how propaganda works.
The only serious tipping point around is 273.15K .
These people don’t know what a mathematical tipping point is .
Agreed. This wasn’t helped by the UN’s resident Secretary General and in-house Communist Commissar Antonio Guterres ranting about “boiling seas”. The sooner the “Tombstone on the Hudson” is reduced to rubble, the better off we will all be.
This reminds me of a sketch by one of the greatest French-speaking comedians of the 20th century, Raymond Devos. I am pasting here the second part of the full text, translated (I hope not too badly) by ChatGPT:
Well then—let’s talk about something else!
Let’s talk about the situation, shall we?
Without specifying which one!
If you don’t mind, I’ll briefly go over the history of the situation—whatever it may be.
A few months ago, remember: the situation, while no worse than today’s, wasn’t any better either!
Even then, we were heading toward disaster—and we knew it…
We were fully aware of it!
For one must not believe that those in charge yesterday were any more ignorant of the situation than those in charge today!
Yes! The disaster, we thought, was for tomorrow!
Which is to say, in fact, it should have been for today!
If my calculations are correct!
Now, what do we see today?
That it is still for tomorrow!
So I ask you, ladies and gentlemen:
Is it by always postponing disaster until the next day that we might manage, on the very day itself, to avoid it?
Besides, let me point out in passing that if the current government is not capable of ensuring the disaster, it is possible that the opposition may take it over!
It is taken from a longer sketch entitled “Parler pour ne rien dire.” If there are any interested people (French speakers or not!), I am including the full video.
Thanks for this.
Seems to work for politics and governments.
Absolutely. It works with all the smooth talkers in the world. Especially the Malthusians and all the apocalyptic prophets.
They need to go easy on the Climate Crack. Save some for the other Climate Crack-heads.
First off a guide to pronouncing German words would be helpful. Added CO2 to the atmosphere can’t cause catastrophic runaway global warming so who cares what the PIK thinks.