First of all, this doesn’t mean that the two formerly “pro-anthropogenic-climate-change” German scientists have stopped believing that CO2 is a “greenhouse gas” — it is — or that they’ve stopped believing atmospheric CO2 can cause “warming” — they still believe it can — but, after carefully examining the data and reports of the IPCC, the “science of the IPCC” if you will, they have changed their minds and have even written a major climate skeptical book, Die kalte Sonne (The Cold Sun). Wow!
One of the fathers of Germany’s modern green movement, Professor Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt, a social democrat and green activist, decided to author a climate science skeptical book together with geologist/paleontologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning. Vahrenholt’s skepticism started when he was asked to review an IPCC report on renewable energy. He found hundreds of errors. When he pointed them out, IPCC officials simply brushed them aside. Stunned, he asked himself, “Is this the way they approached the climate assessment reports?”
Vahrenholt decided to do some digging. His colleague Dr. Lüning also gave him a copy of Andrew Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion. He was horrified by the sloppiness and deception he found. Persuaded by Hoffmann & Campe, he and Lüning decided to write the book. Die kalte Sonne cites 800 sources and has over 80 charts and figures. It examines and summarizes the latest science.
Conclusion: climate catastrophe is called off
Their conclusions run to belief in a much more “robust” climate model, one that can withstand or absorb the effects of CO2 warming instead of being overwhelmed by it. They also now support the theory that the Sun has a much larger influence on the Earth’s climate than the Anthropogenic Climate Change proponents will ever acknowledge. Seem’s like a big “NO DUH!” to this ol’ Okie . . . let’s see, farting cows vs. mega-hydrogen-explosion in near-Earth space: I’d like to have the Vigorish on that!
And the floods of skepticism are sweeping over the country. Worse, Germany’s flagship weekly news magazine Der Spiegel today also featured a 4-page exclusive interview with Vahrenholt, where he repeated that the IPCC has ignored a large part of climate science and that IPCC scientists exaggerated the impact of CO2 on climate. Vahrenholt said that by extending the known natural cycles of the past into the future, and taking CO2′s real impact into effect, we should expect a few tenths of a degree of cooling.
A few tenths of a degree here, a few there . . . nothing to see here folks, just move along. Make’s ol’ Al Gore’s hysterical rants and special-effect imagery of massive coastal flooding seem as realistic as, uh, the movie “2012”? — HA!
It needs to be pointed out Vahrenholt and Lüning are not skeptics; they are lukewarmers who have not been able to find any evidence of a coming climate catastrophe. They believe that man should switch to renewables, but do so in a rational manner: “Work fast, but don’t hurry.”
Skeptic readers should not think that the book will fortify their existing skepticism of CO2 causing warming. The authors agree it does. but have major qualms about the assumed positive CO2-related feed-backs and believe the sun plays a far greater role in the whole scheme of things.
The book cites more than 800 sources – including the latest peer-reviewed literature. It includes more than 80 graphics that clearly illustrate that all is not well with the claims made by alarmist science. It is written so that laymen can easily digest the material and it provides a comprehensive overview of the science and where it stands today.
Naturally, the Climate Change proponents are all going apoplectic over this new heresy by former believers. Religious fanatics always freak out when those in their ranks “defect”. Over at Hot Air, Bruce McQuain adds this perspective:
The building evidence is that rising CO2 has little warming effect in real terms regardless of the amount of the gas emitted. That there is a “saturation level”. If that’s true, and indications are it is, then there’s a) no justification for limiting emissions and b) certainly no justification to tax them.
That, of course, is where politics enter the picture. Governments like the idea of literally creating a tax out of thin air, especially given the current financial condition of most states. Consequently, governments are more likely to fund science that supports their desired conclusion – and it seems that in this case there were plenty who were willing to comply (especially, as Patrick J. Michael has noted, when that gravy train amounts to $103 billion in grants).
So, once again, it really is ALL ABOUT THE BENJAMINS!
Same as it ever was . . .