Pierre Gosselin: Another Major German Daily Questions the Climate Orthodoxy

Posted: January 21, 2013 by tallbloke in Analysis, climate, Forecasting, media, Politics, weather

Major German Daily Front Page Headline: “Global Warming Keeps Us Waiting!…CO2 Over-Estimated?”
By P Gosselin on 21. Januar 2013

For a while it appeared the German mainstream media were going to ignore the reality that the globe hasn’t warmed since the issue has been around (15 years).

But last Friday, Spiegel here was the first major German media outlet to break the ice and asked where the warming’s gone?” Read about it here.


Saturdays’s major daily of Hanover, Germany carries the front-page headline: Global Warming Is Keeping Us Waiting!

Saturday, yet another major media outlet, the Hannoversche Allgemeiene Zeitung (HAZ…Hanover’s major daily) had a front page headline! on its print edition (marked yellow above) titled: Global Warming Keeps Us Waiting!

Hat-tip: Klaus Oellerer

Germans more than ever, now having endured 4 brutal winters in 5 years and now fighting through another wave of brutal cold and heavy snowfall, are asking: Where’s the bloody warming!

Is carbon dioxide being over-estimated? British scientists announce: the temperature increase stopped already 15 years ago.”

In the piece, Margrit Kautenburger asks, “What is it going to be? Is it going to be warmer, or not? The contradictory reports of global warming are falling all over each other.”

Over the years Germany has been bombarded by the media with dire warnings, spurred on by the catastrophe-obesessed Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), that the warming was galloping ahead like never before. Now, suddenly, observations and measurement data show there’s been no warming at all – even though CO2 emissions have steadily risen. The public is wondering what’s going on.

Kautenburger writes that the “authorities have corrected their climate projections significantly downwards” and quotes veteran German meteorologist Klaus E Puls:

Nature is behaving differently than what the models predicted. However, that fact is being ignored. […] Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, but its impact is being completely exaggerated. Puls says that the correction by the Met Office is a sign that there’s a change in thinking taking place. Climate science is too politicised. We need an open and fair discussion.“

Like Spiegel, the HAZ also writes that “climate scientists are puzzled” and adds.

The uncertainty shows, if anything, one thing: The climate is still mostly misunderstood. Foremost short-term trends are uncertain, concedes climate scientist Mojib Latif of the Geomar Center for Ocean Science in Kiel.”

Latif really ought to know. Back in 2000 he infamously predicted there would be little snow at our latitudes.  That prediction is now turning out to be preposterous. 4 of the last 5 winters have been harsh, and right now much of Germany is being paralyzed by yet another hefty blanket of snow.

Have you looked out the window today, Mojb?

  1. michael hart says:

    Kautenburger writes that the “authorities have corrected their climate projections significantly downwards”

    I guess they weren’t really “authorities” after all then, were they? Did they tell you that they were, Herr Kautenburger? Or was it Latif? Or maybe the Green Party?

    Come back next week and I’ll tell you something about Nuclear Power.

  2. vukcevic says:

    As ice and snow are all over Europe, the older citizens would gladly welcome some global warming. On the other hand some of the young and multi-decadal age are determined to enjoy the winter idyll; for myself I was tobogganing yesterday in the local park, and my wife was just as enthusiastic.
    The AGW in the years to come, it will be no more than just a passing fad.
    Hopefully, now we can look forward in making some traction in pursuing real causes of the natural climate change.

  3. Stephen Richards says:

    But the greens still gained 30% of the lower saxony vote.!!!

  4. tallbloke says:

    There you go Stephen. Who said Turkeys don’t vote for Christmas?

  5. mitigatedsceptic says:

    Perhaps their readers have not heard of our miners’ strikes and how they almost brought Britain to her knees or about Mrs Thatcher creating the myth about the ‘greenhouse effect’, using ‘pseudo-science’ to ‘prove’ that burning coal would put an end to life as we know it, in order to destroy the miners’ unions and the deep coal industry for ever.

    Have they been told about Al Gore’s Hockey Stick fraud, Climategate, the perversion of empirical science by the focus on mathematical modelling of hypotheses and the ignoring many of the factors that could be relevant – cloud formation, alterations in the path of the jet stream, fluctuations in the Gulf Stream and El Nino, precession of the axis of Earth, the drift of the magnetic pole etc. not to mention sunspots or the lack of them

    Have they noticed the move from Global Warming to Climate Change (a safe bet indeed) and now the move from the climate scene to conservation of natural resources – so that even were we to discover rich reserves of shale gas, we should conserve it for future generations and be happy to bankrupt the present generation in the process?

    Of course climate changes – we have just emerged from a two hundred year little ice age probably associated with the Maunder Minimum of sun spots. We are now well into another period of diminished solar activity and can expect several decades, if not centuries, of colder weather.

    Fuel poverty is spreading fast and there is a frenzy about carbon emissions. I read about woodlands being pillaged by people desperate to get cheap fuels. I see the costs of supporting the poor rising exponentially, mainly because of soaring fuel prices.

    I am scared that before long the middling classes will be purged of their savings to pay the fuel bills of the poor because of this Great Green Scam.

    I am much more concerned with the real causes of fuel poverty, and of misery and destitution, than with the complex behaviour of the climate which we have never affected and over which, because it is chaotic, we can never have any control.

  6. oldbrew says:

    @ mitigatedsceptic

    You are Boris Johnson and I claim my £5 🙂

  7. Doug Proctor says:

    I’m in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. Canada is where all the bad weather comes from, according to American TV. So far the Canadian West has had another mild winter, which goes to say that the Americans have had a mild winter. Not much snow, either. So don’t expect to hear about the European winter experience with global warming from south of the 49th.

    Speaking of which: American TV typically shows weather maps that end at the 49th parallel, the border with Canada. Things come unexpectedly across that border and hit them like bandits in the night. Even Alaska is shown isolated in a sea of white. It is no wonder that Americans can be told to look to their backyard as representative of the world. The rest of the world is that uncharted area that used to say, Here There Be Monsters.

  8. mitigatedsceptic says:

    😉 Sorry oldbrew – no prize this time!

    I was familiar with the cold period 1650-1850 and lived through the little ice age scare on the mid 20th C. and so I have been sceptical of AGW since the setting up of Hadley – NOT to find the causes of global warming (GHE was invented by Thatcher and Tickel and believed by the Establishment BEFORE there was any so-called climate science at all) but to predict its dire effects!.

    Boris is just beginning to see the light. But he’s got it wrong – as the Met Office said from the beginning; weather and climate are incommensurate – an unexpected cold spell is not evidence of a massive climate change one way or the other.15 years of no change while the sun loses its spots may be.

    Where did I read that people in the 17thC were speculating already that the loss of sunspots was the cause of the LIA ? Just why did Hadley and the Met Office dismiss solar changes as having any significant effect? They were charged with scaring people about burning coal and whatever other factors these might be, we fossil fuel burning humans had to be to blamed (and later taxed for our sins) come what may.

    What surprises me most – why does dear Nigel Lawson not come clean about this – he must have been in on the Thatcher plot right from the beginning. Surely once people see the whole thing as just a crude a political scam and nothing to do with science, the AGW bubble will burst.

    Next to that, I am surprised that the Royal Society (Motto – take no one’s word for it) has been colonised by alarmists and has steadfastly stoked up the panic. As I have said all too often ‘scientific consensus’ is an oxymoron and they should be ashamed to even dream of using such language! Just shows how science has become thoroughly corrupted.

  9. vukcevic says:

    On the day when we hear a powerful call
    from across the Atlantic
    to stop the global warming
    and here Europe is in the grip of a winter, it may be wise for all ‘believers’ and ‘deniers of science’ , to take look at and consider:

  10. Roger Andrews says:

    Vuk’s “powerful call from across the Atlantic” was presumably Obama’s inaugural address, in which Obama insisted on the need to “respond to the threat of climate change” and followed up with:

    “Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms. The path towards sustainable energy sources will be long and sometimes difficult. But America cannot resist this transition; we must lead it.”

    “That is how we will preserve our planet, commanded to our care by God.”

    [Reply] I think God made his point on this side of the pond when it snowed on the parliament which passed the climate bill.First November snow in London for 75 years IIRC.

  11. tallbloke says:

    Here’s James Delingpole’s response to the “powerful call from across the Atlantic”

    When George W Bush declared war on an abstract noun – “Terror” – he was widely and inevitably mocked by the left for his foolishness. Not to be outdone, Barack Obama has used his second inaugural address to declare war on an even more nebulous threat to the security of the world: reality, itself.
    Here’s how he put it in his inaugural address: (H/T Theo Spleenventer; Bishop Hill)

    We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations. Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms.

    The first sentence is a blatant untruth. Concerted global action so far to deal with the threat of climate change has resulted in: higher energy prices; more deaths from fuel poverty; more intrusive regulation; the destruction of rainforests and the squandering of agricultural land on biofuels; higher food prices; famine and food riots – as a result partly of the drive for biofuels; the entrenchment of corporatism and rent-seeking to the detriment of free markets; the ravaging of the countryside with ugly solar farms and even uglier wind turbines; the deaths of millions of birds and bats; the great recession. How any of this has in any way benefited either our children (who are going to find it far harder to find a job) or future generations is a complete mystery.

    The second sentence is a devious combination of the junk factoid and the non sequitur.

    That “overwhelming judgement of science” is a reference to the comprehensively discredited Doran survey: the one where the “97 per cent of climate scientists” turned out to consist of just 75 out of 77 climate scientists who could be bothered to reply to two silly and dubious questions.

    As for the idea that “science” ever has such a thing as an “overwhelming judgement”: this would be news to Galileo, Newton, Einstein and indeed all the great scientists of history, all of whom made their names by advancing theories which completely overturned the “overwhelming judgement” of their contemporaries.
    It’s probably true, up to a point, that “none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires, and crippling drought, and more powerful storms”. But only if you accept that everyone lives in a region susceptible to fires, drought and powerful storms, which not everyone does.

    What Obama is presumably trying to slip into that weasel sentence is the notion that “science” is overwhelmingly of the view that raging fires, crippling drought and more powerful storms are increasing as a result of “climate change” (note incidentally how he’s careful not to say whether or not it is man-made, thus enabling him to cover all eventualities). But if this is the case, I’d dearly love to see the evidence that this is a) anthropogenic b) controllable or c)historically unprecedented. Certainly, according to this graph at Watts Up With That?, there is nothing particular weird or alarming about recent weather activity. On an index of “Extreme Weather” in the US since 1910, last year – 2012 – ranks a very modest 54th.

    Still, for all that, I applaud the President’s chutzpah and ingenuity. If you want to expand the size of government as much as he obviously does, there’s really no better way than to declare war on reality. Reality is a slippery foe; it has many heads – and no sooner have you cut off one than a thousand more grow in its place; it’s everywhere, at all times, and there’s no escaping it, meaning you have to mobilise unimaginably large resources if you are to have a hope of defeating it. Which, of course, you never will. Obama’s glorious war on reality will be a war without end. Bad luck, America. (But you can’t say I didn’t warn you.…)

  12. Roger Andrews says:

    I think Obama said what he said just to keep the Greens happy. He knows perfectly well that America isn’t going to lead the world in the fight against climate change. He’s got more important things to worry about, like who’s going to win the Superbowl. 😉

  13. Brian H says:

    More like, how’s he going to legalize his third term.

    Above: “short-term trends are uncertain.” And they’ve nary a clue about long-term trends.