My short periods mean more than yours

A letter appeared yesterday in the NZ Herald following Professor Chris de Freitas’ article Human interference real threat to Pacific atolls two weeks ago. It was this letter:

Letter to the Herald

My reply

The Herald may or may not publish the letter I sent them, but here’s an elaboration of it — substantially changed to take advantage of the lack of word limit here:


Graham Alcock claims Professor de Freitas draws conclusions about climate from short periods, quoting him as saying in the Herald “there has been no warming over the past 17 years.”

But what Professor de Freitas actually said was: “To the surprise of many scientists, sea level rise is barely perceptible in the Pacific. This is possibly because, at least in part, there has been no global warming over the past 17 years.”

Which is not the unequivocal conclusion Mr Alcock presents to us. Unexpectedly, he mocks the professor’s statement by correctly defining lack of warming: “because each year since 1998 has not got progressively warmer.” He implies disdain that Professor de Freitas should say that global warming has been absent only because there has been no global warming.

When what’s actually happening defies one’s fond belief it must be hard to accept.

Trivialise this huge failure

But the warming did not happen, Professor de Freitas said it did not happen and Mr Alcock shows he understands perfectly what no warming is, so why should the professor not say so? A look at global temperatures shows that temperatures have not risen, and has been confirmed by the UK Met Office, the chairman of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, and the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, Professor Sir Peter Gluckman. Our PMCSA tries to trivialise this huge 17-year failure to warm as a “short-term departure from the long-term warming trend.”

Oh, good science, Professor Gluckman. Seventeen years is a gigantic short term. How do you know the warming will return (are you psychic?). Since it was warming for only about 20 years from about 1980, that’s an amazingly short long-term trend, wouldn’t you say?

So the hiatus in warming is openly recognised in high places around the world, and it’s quite put the cat among the pigeons as people try to explain it without destroying the CAGW hypothesis. The hiatus cannot be nullified, as Mr Alcock intends, by simply denying its existence. He refers to a strong El Nino and cooling La Nina events merely to distract us — note that he utterly fails to deny the lack of warming.

Empty insinuation

When he says 11 of the last 13 years were the warmest on record he makes the empty insinuation that therefore it warmed over the period. But it could well have been cooling and still be true. Oh, wait, it was cooling. The claimed “records” were by virtue of only a few hundredths of a degree and were to all intents and purposes identical.

If temperatures are to reach the range suggested in the AR5 (2013), after failing to rise for 17 years (over half the conventional period of 30 years), they’d better get a hurry on! Temperatures must now rise at an impossibly steep rate for the predictions of strong warming still to come true.

On sea level, Mr Alcock says: “The longest reliable tide gauge records in the south Pacific go back only to 1992. But the trends at the 11 island gauges range from about 3mm to 8mm a year, faster than the long-term global rate.” He seems not to know that New Zealand, also situated in the South Pacific, has reliable tide gauge records going back to the 19th century, some of the longest in the world.

Data going in his direction

But he’ll take data going in his direction wherever he can find it. This is called cherry-picking. He also ignores the caution in every monthly report on the South Pacific Sea Level and Climate Monitoring Project web site about interpreting trends until more time has elapsed. Time is required for all the natural cycles affecting sea level to be experienced and to pass. The caution is clear:

Short-Term Trends

It is important to stress that as the sea level record becomes longer, the short-term trend estimate becomes more stable and reliable. Observed trends in sea level include natural variability, for example, events such as El Niño and effects due to many other atmospheric, oceanographic and geological processes. Longer-term data sets for all stations are required in order to separate the effects of the different signals. Please exercise caution in interpreting the short-term trends in the table below – they will almost certainly change over the coming years as the data set increases in length.

The long-term rate of sea level rise in New Zealand is about 2.0 mm/yr (Hannah, 2004) with no evidence of acceleration. Global data from the University of Colorado show a clear deceleration between 1992 and 2010. The trend from 1992 to the end of 2000 is 3.14 mm/yr; from 2001 to September 2010 it’s 2.34 mm/yr. This represents a 25% reduction in the rate of sea level rise. [My thanks to Bob D.]

A breathtaking hypocrisy

Mr Alcock creates a straw-man argument by referring to a recent drop in sea level, which the professor didn’t mention. We can be sure that when Professor de Freitas says Pacific sea level rise is almost undetectable he has observations to back it up but our fearless Mr Alcock doesn’t bother to inquire.

He castigates Chris de Freitas for drawing firm conclusions from short periods (which he doesn’t actually do), so when he himself claims that Pacific sea levels are rising faster than the global rate — citing records that he acknowledges go back “only to 1992” (20 years) — he exhibits a quite breathtaking hypocrisy.

All his arguments fail. What a waste of time.

Yours, etc.

Views: 104

34 Thoughts on “My short periods mean more than yours

  1. Mike Jowsey on 16/12/2013 at 11:25 am said:

    “All his arguments fail. What a waste of time.”

    LOL – that is a haiku-type ending to a perfect discombobulation of vacuous hand-waving. Thanks RT. I hope the Herald publishes it.

  2. SimonP on 16/12/2013 at 1:57 pm said:

    Your mocking of Prof Gluckman comes across as very odd as he doesn’t even feature in the article. He is not pyschic but he does understand the science and how contrarians pick start-points to coincide with major ENSO events.
    BTW, We have just had the warmest November ever recorded: 0.77° above the global 1951-1980 mean.

    • Andy on 16/12/2013 at 2:12 pm said:

      When I watched the IPCC “out reach” session from Wellington recently, everyone there acknowledged “the pause” and there was no mention of cherry picking or El Nino events.

    • Magoo on 16/12/2013 at 2:17 pm said:

      Shame it hasn’t warmed for between 16-23 yrs, and no evidence of positive feedback from water vapour in 40 yrs. According to satellite data shown at scepticalscience, it hasn’t warmed since 1990 for RSS and 1994 for UAH – hardly ‘start-points to coincide with major ENSO events.’

    • Richard C (NZ) on 17/12/2013 at 12:56 pm said:

      >”According to…………scepticalscience, it hasn’t warmed…..”

      And it’s getting worse for them Magoo:

      ‘Climate Bet for Charity, 2013 Update’

      by Rob Honeycutt

      “To date, climate realists [(?) SkS – Honeycutt, Nuccitelli et al] have put up a total of $5200 and the climate skeptics have put up $2000.”

      “I pulled up the UAH and RSS lower tropospheric anomalies through and did the calculations myself. Sure enough, the average of UAH and RSS for the 2001-2010 decade comes out at 0.226C. The current 2011-present decade is running at 0.173C. That’s 0.053C below the last decade, based on, yes, three years of data. So, they actually do have this much correct.”

      So far, looks like emotion might have crept in to the “climate realists” betting.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 16/12/2013 at 10:25 pm said:

      >”…..he [Gluckman] does understand … contrarians pick start-points to coincide with major ENSO events”

      How do you know he “understands” that Simon (it’s problematic – see below)?

      Does he “understand” how the IPCC picked an end point (2010) of their attribution period to coincide with a major ENSO event (El Nino) for their 2013 assessment report?.

      Or how the CO2-centric climate scientists perennially truncate their series short for best effect e.g Balmaseda et al (2013) ended at 2009 even though there was up-to-date data available to at least 2012, and they didn’t do a basin-by-basin analysis to boot. Does he “understand” that?

      You’ve got a gall Simon, and I could elaborate more but a question in regard to your statement instead. What examples (note my plural) do you have of “contrarians” who “pick start-points to coincide with major ENSO events” (note your plural) given the 1998 El Nino was 15 years ago and Santer’s criteria is at least 17 years?

      You might consider WUWT “contrarian” for example Simon (I consider it luke-warm but no matter), but I don’t see the offending 1998 (or any other ENSO event for that matter) start points at WUWT. A November 3, 2013 post had:

      “,,,,the different times for a slope that is at least very slightly negative ranges from 8 years and 9 months to 16 years and 11 months.”

      1. For GISS, the slope is flat since September 1, 2001 or 12 years, 1 month. (goes to September 30, 2013)
      2. For Hadcrut3, the slope is flat since May 1997 or 16 years, 5 months. (goes to September)
      3. For a combination of GISS, Hadcrut3, UAH and RSS, the slope is flat since December 2000 or 12 years, 10 months. (goes to September)
      4. For Hadcrut4, the slope is flat since December 2000 or 12 years, 10 months. (goes to September)
      5. For Hadsst3, the slope is flat since November 2000 or 12 years, 11 months. (goes to September)
      6. For UAH, the slope is flat since January 2005 or 8 years, 9 months. (goes to September using version 5.5)
      7. For RSS, the slope is flat since November 1996 or 17 years (goes to October)
      RSS is 203/204 or 99.5% of the way to Ben Santer’s 17 years.


      “….no statistically significant warming for between 16 and 20 years.”

      For UAH: Since November 1995: CI from -0.001 to 2.501
      For RSS: Since December 1992: CI from -0.005 to 1.968
      For Hadcrut4: Since August 1996: CI from -0.006 to 1.358
      For Hadsst3: Since May 1993: CI from -0.002 to 1.768
      For GISS: Since August 1997: CI from -0.030 to 1.326

      Can’t see WUWT being a culprit as Gluckman “understands”, in fact, only the superseded HadCRUT3 reference comes close to a start-point coinciding with a major ENSO event. Are the culprits elsewhere Simon (i.e. put up or shut up)?

      >”BTW, We have just had the warmest November ever recorded: 0.77° above the global 1951-1980 mean”

      GISS? Whoop-de-doo. 1951-1980 was the low of the PDO cycle and their post-adjustment “adjustments” are legendary e.g.

      More pronounced than GISS, HadCRUT has the 1940-1950 decade warmer than 1951-1980 so what are those 3 decades representative of exactly? The coolest 30 years they could find?

      See the IPCC’s AR5 SPM Fig 1(a) showing HadCRUT4 decadal averages here:

      UAH November anomaly was unremarkable:

      RSS November anomaly was a non-event too and below the simple running 37 month average (nearly corresponding to a running 3 yr average):

      Nothing yet from HadCRUT so a “warmest ever” pronouncement seems a little premature to me (unless of course, we have to “pick” GISS exclusively).

      GISS also has a 0.77 C anomaly for October 2005 (8 years prior). You might like to explain the following respective October 2005 and November 2013 spacial GISS anomaly plots in terms of anthropogenic global warming Simon (i.e. in view of the wild regional differences between the two, what makes November 2013 “special” but not October 2005):

      Really though, aren’t you just indulging in a bit of “picking” yourself Simon.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 16/12/2013 at 11:21 pm said:

      Correction – “…only the superseded HadCRUT3 reference comes close to a [slightly negative start point and GISS to a no statistically significant warming] start-point coinciding with a major ENSO event.”

      Obviously these are statistical coincidences given the range of trends in each category and not overtly “picked”.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 20/12/2013 at 8:15 am said:

      >”e.g Balmaseda et al (2013) ended at 2009 even though there was up-to-date data available to at least 2012, and they didn’t do a basin-by-basin analysis to boot”

      Bob Tisdale does the analysis for them:

      ‘If Manmade Greenhouse Gases Are Responsible for the Warming of the Global Oceans…’

      “…then why do the vertical mean temperature anomalies (NODC 0-2000 meter data) of the Pacific Ocean as a whole and of the North Atlantic fail to show any warming over the past decade,”

      “Additionally, Kevin Trenberth and associates say the recent series of La Niña events are causing the Pacific Ocean to warm at depths below 700 meters, and as a result, global warming continues. See:

      * Meehl et al (2013)
      * Balmaseda et al. (2013)
      * Trenberth and Fasullo (2013)

      Why then has the annual vertical mean temperatures of the Pacific Ocean (0-2000 meters) failed to show any warming over the past decade?”

  3. Richard C (NZ) on 17/12/2013 at 1:17 pm said:

    For chuckles: ‘IPCC’s Confidence Grows as Models Get Worse’

  4. SimonP on 18/12/2013 at 12:15 pm said:

    Here is a good discussion on the pause / hiatus / random variation:

    • Andy on 18/12/2013 at 1:51 pm said:

      They managed to get a model run that showed the pause, and then accelerated to 4 degrees of warming by 2100

    • Mike Jowsey on 18/12/2013 at 5:27 pm said:

      Models can do anything!

    • Richard C (NZ) on 18/12/2013 at 7:10 pm said:

      They found ONE run, from ONE model, from the superseded CMIP3 – why not “state-of-the-art” CMIP5? And where’s the historical observations comparison?

      This is just a coincidental random walk RC have “picked” because the majority of models (both CMIP 3 and 5) don’t exhibit an early 21st century hiatus and ENSO is “stochastic” (random) in the models. Rahmstorf says:

      “First an important point: the global temperature trend over only 15 years is neither robust nor predictive of longer-term climate trends”

      Then how about (from up-thread)?

      No statistically significant warming for between 16 and 20 years:

      For UAH: Since November 1995: CI from -0.001 to 2.501
      For RSS: Since December 1992: CI from -0.005 to 1.968
      For Hadcrut4: Since August 1996: CI from -0.006 to 1.358
      For Hadsst3: Since May 1993: CI from -0.002 to 1.768
      For GISS: Since August 1997: CI from -0.030 to 1.326

      Rahmstorf goes on:

      “…the current CMIP5 simulations run from 2005 in scenario mode (see Figure 6) rather than being driven by observed forcings. They are therefore driven e.g. with an average solar cycle and know nothing of the particularly deep and prolonged solar minimum 2005-2010.”

      Then they had better learn – pronto (their MRI model that managed a pause didn’t know either – what caused that pause then?), because that’s how it will be for 60 years or so i.e. just one weak 11 yr solar cycle does not make a significant (in century scale terms), and the effects of “deep solar minimum” (as Rahmstorf puts it). The effects of 2005-2010 wont be fully observed until at least 2010-2020 due to thermal lag and the SC24 peak right now in 2013 is the weakest in 100 yrs, we wont know all about the effect of that until after 2013.

      Rahmstorf”s in for a shock when (as predicted) there’s about 5 weak 11 yr cycles in a row if he hasn’t thought about it (as every solar specialist has) and he discovers what a deep solar BICENTENNIAL minimum is. CO2-centric solar specialist Mike Lockwood has recently raised his probability of an 1800s Dalton-style minimum from 5% to 30%. Rahmstorf might consider what the temperature was at that time in the 3 graphs he’s posted.

      Rahmstorf concludes:

      “….despite some cool forcing factors such as the deep solar minimum not included in the models. There is therefore no reason to find the models faulty. There is also no reason to expect less warming in the future”

      Clueless – but predictable spin.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 18/12/2013 at 7:24 pm said:


      “i.e. just one weak 11 yr solar cycle minimum does not make [a significant difference in century scale terms], and [the full effects of SC23] “deep solar minimum” (as Rahmstorf puts it) [wont be observed for at least a dozen years after it].

      “The effects of 2005-2010 wont be fully observed until at least [2015]-2020”

    • Richard C (NZ) on 18/12/2013 at 7:38 pm said:

      Yet another correction:

      “…the SC24 peak right now in 2013 is the weakest in 100 yrs, we wont know all about the effect of that until after [at least 2023]”

    • Richard C (NZ) on 18/12/2013 at 9:24 pm said:

      >”And where’s the historical observations comparison?”


      Didn’t mimic 1865 – 1905 (40 yrs) or 1920 – 1970 (50 yrs) i.e. 90 out of 150 yrs were out of whack.

      Other than that, it did quite well.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 18/12/2013 at 7:48 pm said:


      [Rahmstorf] – “By the way this example refutes the popular “climate skeptics” claim that climate models cannot explain such a “hiatus” ”

      In your dreams Stefan. What causality EXACTLY, did the SINGLE MRI model run (not “models”) “explain”?

    • Richard C (NZ) on 18/12/2013 at 7:57 pm said:

      >”…SINGLE MRI model run…”

      This model has probably been run in the same configuration a number of times. How many times does it exhibit an early 21st century hiatus in that configuration?

      I’m guessing once if the UKMO’s decadal forecast is anything to go by.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 18/12/2013 at 8:27 pm said:

      >”…if the UKMO’s decadal forecast is anything to go by”

      Figure 1:………………..The blue lines show the evolution of the 10 individual forecasts which constitute the ensemble.

      Embiggen the Fig 1 graph to see the full effect. See also:

      ‘Tracking down the uncertainties in weather and climate prediction’

    • Richard C (NZ) on 18/12/2013 at 11:36 pm said:

      The RC “example” is MRI A2 Run 5 here:

      “Run 5” tells us there’s at least 4 other runs – what did all the other 4(+?) runs exhibit?

      But more to the point, according to Run 5 (assuming the Run 5 “hiatus” is anything other than wishful thinking on the part of Rahmstorf), from the low at about now in 2013 there will be a huge 0.8 C spike up to 2015. Why?

      The phenomenon that could produce this is a reversal from La Nina to strong El Nino similar to 1997 – 1998 which was actually a 0.8 C spike, see HadCRUT4:

      Run 5 has a 0.5 C spike 1994 – 1995 but no 0.8 C 1998 El Nino spike. In other words, the start of Rahmstorf’s “21-year model ‘hiatus’ 1995 – 2015” has no real-world validity.

      Neither is the end of the Run 5 “hiatus” realistic. We are currently in ENSO-neutral conditions, slightly negative, but the temperature is not abnormally cool relative to the decade prior (see HadCRUT4 above). In fact it’s right on the average. But if for arguments sake we take the current low as 0.3 on the HadCRUT4 anomaly, a 0.8 C spike still goes off the chart by 0,2 C.

      So not only are the likes of Rahmstorf, Hansen and Renowden, i.e. the alarmist mindset, desperately wishing for a REALLY strong El Nino to get warming back on (CO2-forced model) track in the current negative PDO/La Nina-dominant regime, this particular model run has mimiced their unrealistic wishfulness.

      This appears to be a triumph of modeling – a model run that mimics EXACTLY the wishful thinking of warming alarmists over the specific and very short future 2013 – 2015 timeframe. It must be some sort of man-machine tele-connection.

      In reality though, the chances of a 0.8 C spike over the next 2 years are vanishingly small given current levels – even in the unlikely event of a massive El Nino.

    • Richard C (NZ) on 18/12/2013 at 11:57 pm said:

      The peak of the Run 5 spike looks more like 2016 than 2015 on second look i.e. 0.8 C rise 2013 – 2016, but the argument remains the same.

  5. Andy on 18/12/2013 at 9:56 pm said:

    Off topic, but…

    Reddit’s science forum banned climate deniers. Why don’t all newspapers do the same?

    Most excellent droning about “deniers” by some ecofacist cretin.

  6. Richard C (NZ) on 19/12/2013 at 1:15 pm said:

    The RealClimate post by Stefan Rahmstorf up-thread has it’s roots in the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) i.e. by now, this association should be tantamount to need-we-say-more-?

    Reminds me of the NTZ post with the news that Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber, founding Director of PIK, has been dissed by the German govt junior coalition partner, the FDP, who moved to have his reappointment as Chair of the German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU) blocked:

    ‘Schellnhuber Rejected! Why The German Government Is Moving To Overhaul Its Climate Advisory Board’

    By P Gosselin on 3. Mai 2013

    Why? Among other things (see post), Pete explains:

    “In Schellhnhuber’s and the WBGU’s mind, the climate science was settled and CO2 was going to warm the planet some 6°C by 2100 unless their plan for drastic reductions was implemented. To curb CO2 emissions, Schellnhuber and the WBGU introduced in April 2011 its “Masterplan” for “The Great Transformation” of global society, read here, which called for a more authoritarian global government, watered-down democracy, and the marginalization of climate science dissidents and skeptics. Prof. Hans von Storch called this sort of arrangement where citizens and society have no say and are expected to just sit there and listen to clever scientists explain how the situation is, and what policy has to be implemented, as “almost a Medieval political understanding”, read here. He even went on to say that some of the PIK scientists seemed to have “taken on the role of prophets“.”

    Stefan Rahmstorf is one of those “prophets“.

    Also at NTZ:

    ‘Climate Scientist Blasts “Ruthless”, Dangerous And “Dictatorial” German Climate Science That Bullies And Silences Dissent’

    By P Gosselin on 17. Dezember 2013

    “The European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE) here presents a blistering report by retired climate scientist Prof. Horst-Joachim Lüdecke and meteorologist Klaus-Eckart Puls on how a German and Swiss network of IPCC scientists who, using pernicious methods, thwart legitimate scientists and media reporters who they view as a threat to the AGW hypothesis.”

    Just as in Australia, the boys have cried wolf too many times. With no wolf materializing, those cries are increasingly falling on deaf ears – even in Germany

    • Richard C (NZ) on 19/12/2013 at 1:19 pm said:

      Lüdecke and Puls write that these IPCC scientists should serve as:

      “warning signals that should never be forgotten. This is especially so when an eco-dictatorial planned “Great Transformation” of avoiding CO2 is being propagated.”

      Lüdecke and Puls of EIKE then remind readers that such threat was seen already once early in the 20th century.

    • Andy on 19/12/2013 at 1:44 pm said:

      The last interview recorded with Carl Sagan foresaw a lot of the issues we are facing with unchallenged science and an uneducated public and government (2.5 minutes – video)

    • Richard C (NZ) on 19/12/2013 at 1:58 pm said:

      PIK/Rahmstorf relevant excerpts:

      Smearing of Jan Veizer and Nir Shaviv

      In 2003 the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) led a smear campaign against Slovakian geoscientist Jan Veizer and Israeli astrophysicist Nir Shaviv. Both are renowned scientists and have won many awards. In July 2003 Veizer and Shaviv published a ground-breaking paper on the climate impacts from the Earth’s orbit through the galaxy titled: ”Celestial Driver of Phanerozoic Climate?”.

      […] EIKE writes:

      The climb-down to near yellow journalism by the PIK’s press action had absolutely nothing to do with scientific etiquette and debate. Of the PIK press release signatories, many are known to readers as Germans and Swiss AGW activists and are still preaching ‘end-of-the-world’ by CO2.

      Dr. J. Beer, EAWAG, ETH Zurich
      Prof. U. Cubasch, Institut für Meteorologie, Berlin
      Prof. O. Eugster, Weltraumforschung und Planetologie, Bern
      Dr. C. Fröhlich, Weltstrahlungszentrum, Davos
      Prof. G. Haug, GeoForschungsZentrum, Potsdam
      Dr. F. Joos, Klima- und Umweltphysik, Bern
      Prof. M. Latif, Institut für Meereskunde, Kiel [3]
      Dr. U. Neu, ProClim, Schweiz. Akademie der Naturwissenschaften
      Prof. C. Pfister, Historisches Institut, Bern
      Prof. S. Rahmstorf, Potsdam-Institut für Klimafolgenforschung [4]
      Dr. R. Sartorius, Schutz der Erdatmosphäre, UBA, Berlin
      Prof. C. D. Schönwiese, Institut für Meteorologie und Geophysik, Frankfurt [5]
      Prof. W. Seiler, Meteorologie und Klimaforschung, Garmisch-Partenkirchen
      Prof. T. Stocker, Klima- und Umweltphysik, Bern [6]

      Veizer leaves Germany

      […] The leaked Climategate e-mails put Stefan Rahmstorf at the center of the campaign. The press release smearing Veizer and Shaviv was authored by PIK and Climategate e-mails show Rahmstorf bringing up the matter more than once. In one e-mail Rahmstorf writes:

      “I feel another recent paper may require a similar scientific response, the one by Shaviv & Veizer (attached). …This paper got big media coverage here in Germany and I guess it is set to become a climate skeptics classic:

      I think it would be a good idea to get a group of people together to respond to this paper (in GSA today). My expertise is good for part of this and I’d be willing to contribute. My questions to you are:

      1. Does anyone know of any other plans to respond to this paper? 2. Would anyone like to be part of writing a response? 3. Do you know people who may have the right expertise? Then please forward them this mail.

      Best regards, Stefan”

      Not about science. It’s about silencing dissenters

      {…] Lüdecke and Puls use another Climategate e-mail presented by a US blogger to illustrate that it’s not about finding out what the truth is, but about attacking anything that disagrees with the AGW hypothesis:

      “The paper will be thoroughly refuted. I do not know as yet by who, or on what grounds, or where the definitive refutation paper will appear. But it will be refuted and dismissed in no time, never to be talked about again (except by ”deniers” and ’flat-earthers”). That is thankfully the way we operate in climate science, trust us, we’re scientists. Everything is under control. Nothing to see here, move on.”

      That is completely remote of science and very characteristic of dictatorships. EIKE characterizes the attack methods used by the German and Swiss IPCC scientists as “ruthless“. This was also the view of Spiegel, who in 2007 wrote:

      “The ruthless methods of climate scientist Rahmstorf: Stefan Rahmstorf is the most famous of the top climate scientists in Germany – and at the same time the most tenacious. Journalists have complained of intimidastion attempts. Scientists are distancing themselves from the Potsdam Professor. In the meantime the conflict is being waged in newspapers.”

      Rahmstorf demands control of the press

      EIKE adds that “climate scientists like Rahmstorf firmly believe they are the keepers of the absolute truth”, and at the same time they are so sure of their politically supported power that they are demanding absolute control over the press.”

      The methods used by the AGW scientists resemble earlier historical attempts to purify thought, culture and science, EIKE suggests. Spiegel wrote of Rahmstorf:

      “Rahmstorf threatens with a ’Black List’: How Rahmstorf goes about upbringing journalists is explained in a notable commentary he wrote in “Zeit” in February 2005. At his private internet site he has a list of ‘classic media blunders’ where ‘I require every journalist to attend an obligatory lecture before an interview’. If the journalist reports something sensational, then he will feel the consequences: ‘Such journalists get put on my black list,’ Rahmstorf wrote in ZEIT.”

      Dissenters see jihadist undercurrents

      Lüdecke and Puls write that intimidating media outlets is part of the Rahmstorf’s strategy. Germany’s flagship Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung once published an op-ed piece by climate skeptics, who wrote:

      “It’s a holy war, a jihad that Rahmstorf is leading. And no prisoners are taken: He takes quotes out of context, deletes, and thus does not permit his end-of-world announcement to ever be threatened.”

      Court fines Rahmstorf for smearing an uncooperative journalist

      Once Rahmstorf took his hounding and bullying of a non-conforming journalists too far when he wrote an unflattering piece about a journalist in attempt to discredit her. Eventually a court in Cologne found in favor of the journalist, ruling that Rahmstorf had maliciously spread falsehoods about the journalist, even suggesting that she had once plagarized. The court ruled in favor of the journalist and Rahmstorf was fined.

      Spiegel commented on the affair:

      “Rahmstorf seems to have learned little from the court’s ruling – rather he complains that there is no control over the end-product of the classic media.”

      Thank God for that. Let’s hope it stays that way.

      [H/t to Simon for reminding us all of the character of Stefan Rahmstorf]

    • Richard C (NZ) on 19/12/2013 at 3:45 pm said:

      Latest PIK scaremongery:

      ‘Global water scarcity predicted to rise by 40%’

      by Lydia Hales

      Global water scarcity already on the rise due to exploding global populations may be amplified by up to 40 per cent due to climate change.

      Research carried out by the German-based Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research has found significantly more people throughout the world will struggle to find the water needed for the basics of life as the planet warms.

      Modelling for the study suggested the spread of water scarcity could be intensified by 40 per cent across the planet as a result of global warming, and in some scenarios could be more than 100 per cent.

      As a result the institute projects that between five and 20 per cent of the world’s population may face “absolute” water scarcity as the climate changes. How far water scarcity will extend will depend on the rate of population growth and warming.

      The findings are the result of a comprehensive study, produced in collaboration with research groups around the world, using 11 hydrological models driven by five climate models.

      Read more:

  7. Andy on 20/12/2013 at 2:55 pm said:

    Off topic, the UK parliamentary submissions by various people (including Barry Brill) can be accessed fem here:

    The submission by Nic Lewis is particularly good, and explains the problems with the climate sensitivity issue in a very succinct manner.

  8. Ian H on 05/01/2014 at 6:10 pm said:

    Too long and so not a hope of being published. Newspapers really don’t care. All they want is readible material in reasonably packaged quantities to fill up the spaces between the advertising.

    • You’re quite right, Ian, though the version I sent the Herald was a lot shorter. Trying for two birds with one stone — a blog post plus a letter! Cheers.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post Navigation