Scientist: "I Feel Duped on Climate Change"

[Marvin the Martian]

Basically, another scientist backs up the Svensmark theory of climate
change.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,813814,00.html

He wants to break a taboo. "The climate catastrophe is not occurring," he
writes in his book "Die Kalte Sonne" (The Cold Sun), published by Hoffmann
and Campe, which will be in bookstores next week.

[Surfer]

On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 11:22:56 -0600, Marvin the Martian
<mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:

>
>Basically, another scientist backs up the Svensmark theory of climate
>change.
>
>http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,813814,00.html
>

<Start extract>

He has only given the book to one climatologist, Jochem Marotzke, the
director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, to
read prior to its publication. Marotzke's assessment is clear:
Vahrenholt represents the standpoints of climate skeptics. "A number
of the hypotheses in the book were refuted long ago," Marotzke claims,
but adds, on a self-critical note, that his profession has neglected
to explain that global temperatures will not increase uniformly.
Instead, says Marotzke, there could also be phases of stagnation and
even minor declines in temperature. "This has exposed us to potential
criticism," he says.

<End extract>

[Eric Stevens]

On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 05:54:40 +1030, Surfer <n...@spam.invalid> wrote:

>On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 11:22:56 -0600, Marvin the Martian
><mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>Basically, another scientist backs up the Svensmark theory of climate
>>change.
>>
>>http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,813814,00.html
>>
>
><Start extract>
>
>He has only given the book to one climatologist, Jochem Marotzke, the
>director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, to
>read prior to its publication. Marotzke's assessment is clear:
>Vahrenholt represents the standpoints of climate skeptics. "A number
>of the hypotheses in the book were refuted long ago," Marotzke claims,
>but adds, on a self-critical note, that his profession has neglected
>to explain that global temperatures will not increase uniformly.

Of course they didn't. That was never part of the theory. At one stage
there were determined efforts to even get rid of the medieval warm
period. Smooth, smooth, all the way.

>Instead, says Marotzke, there could also be phases of stagnation and
>even minor declines in temperature. "This has exposed us to potential
>criticism," he says.

Criticism? It shows they were wrong.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[erschro...@gmail.com]

So it wasn't published in peer-reviewed scientific journal? That
makes it as valid as book on Bigfoot.

Varenholt is also a utility company executive.

[Eric Stevens]

He was also the best known environmentalist in the German Social
Democrat party. See:

http://www.thegwpf.org/international-news/4923-solar-shift-rock-germany.html

Also:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100135592/germanys-george-monbiot-turns-climate-sceptic/
"Professor Fritz Vahrenholt, is a former environment minister and
well-known green activist."


... and you attempt to blacken him by calling him a 'utility company
executive'.

What would you have said about him last week before the book was
announced?

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[og w ash@hogwash AGWHooey]

[Marvin the Martian]

Truth stands on its own, of course, regardless where it is said or who
says it.

Your worship and blind faith in "peer review" just proves you've never
read journals. All kinds of crap gets published, all kinds of good work
doesn't get published. Given the CRU e-mails PROVE that the peer review
process wrt climate science is rigged for fraud, your statement is
nothing but a deception.

> Varenholt is also a utility company executive.

And you're either a fool or a liar.

[Marvin the Martian]

And they were wrong in the past. Since the last decade was an utter
failure of their predictions, they are trying to form a NEW man made
global warming hypothesis. But based on what?! A real scientist would say
"hypothesis rejected" and be done with it, and go with the cosmic ray/
solar cycle theory to account for the changes.

Not these "scientist", they have an irrational but firm belief (based on
the amount of funding they will get for supporting AGW) that climate
change MUST be man made.

[og w ash@hogwash AGWHooey]

[Bill Snyder]

More or less the same thing, perhaps?

<http://www.ruthfullyyours.com/2012/02/08/fritz-varenholt-german-electric-utility-executivei-feel-duped-on-climate-change/>

Headline: FRITZ VARENHOLT, GERMAN ELECTRIC UTILITY EXECUTIVE”I
FEEL DUPED ON CLIMATE CHANGE”

Excerpt:

"His party, Germany’s center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD),
chose him as environment senator in the city-state of Hamburg,
where he incurred the wrath of the environmental lobby by building
a waste incineration plant, earning him the nickname “Feuerfritze”
(Fire Fritz). He worked in industry after that, first for oil
multinational Shell and then for wind turbine maker RePower, which
he helped develop. Now, as the outgoing CEO of the renewable
energy group RWE Innogy, he is about to embark on his next major
battle. “I’m going to make enemies in all camps,” he says."


--
Bill Snyder [This space unintentionally left blank]

[Bill Snyder]

On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:05:48 +1300, Eric Stevens
<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:

BTW, lest you suspect that the "utility executive" phrase was an
artifact of the site at the URL I posted, you can see for yourself
that the article at the originally-cited Der Spiegel URL calls him
a "German electric utility executive," and then a plain "utility
executive" (and contains exactly the same comments regarding his
political career and subsequent activities).

[Eric Stevens]

On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 18:36:06 -0600, Bill Snyder <bsn...@airmail.net>
wrote:

But that's _after_the_book_was_announced_ . My question was how would
erschroedinger have described Varenholt when he was still a former

environment minister and well-known green activist.

Probably in glowing terms.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Bill Snyder]

On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:15:39 +1300, Eric Stevens

Might well depend on when it was. I for one have my doubts about
how much credit he'd have been given for green activism while he
was working for Shell Oil.

[kym]

On Feb 10, 11:14 am, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
...

> Truth stands on its own, of course, regardless where it is said or who
> says it.

....

LOL.

Is this the same guy that wrote:

[T]he IPCC, Scientific American, and Wikipeida are proven to be liars.
I kinda got that from the political crap they print.
-- Marvin the paranoid Martian <mar...@ontomars.org>, 10 Feb 2012
06:47 -0600


--
Now, that's an ad hom.
-- Marvin the paranoid Martian <mar...@ontomars.org>, 10 Feb 2012
05:56 -0600

[Eric Stevens]

rOn Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:13:24 -0800 (PST), kym <kymho...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Feb 10, 11:14 am, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
>...
>> Truth stands on its own, of course, regardless where it is said or who
>> says it.
>....
>
>LOL.
>
>Is this the same guy that wrote:
>
>[T]he IPCC, Scientific American, and Wikipeida are proven to be liars.
>I kinda got that from the political crap they print.
>-- Marvin the paranoid Martian <mar...@ontomars.org>, 10 Feb 2012
>06:47 -0600

The IPCC has been proven to be liars.

Scientific American is owned by the Nature group which has some
distinctly dubious practices with matters relating to climate change.

Wikepedia - well that's Wikepedia.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[7]

This is going to soil a few globally warmed panties.

[Marvin the Martian]

On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:13:24 -0800, kym wrote:

> On Feb 10, 11:14 am, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote: ...
>> Truth stands on its own, of course, regardless where it is said or who
>> says it.
> ....
>
> LOL.
>
> Is this the same guy that wrote:
>
> [T]he IPCC, Scientific American, and Wikipeida are proven to be liars. I
> kinda got that from the political crap they print. -- Marvin the
> paranoid Martian <mar...@ontomars.org>, 10 Feb 2012 06:47 -0600

And yet, they did lie and the recent information that shows that they
lied about ice caps and glaciers melting that really were not proves
that.

You seem to be so stupid that you can't distinguish the fact that even a
known liar may tell the truth from time to time just to throw people off.

Yes, they are known to have lied and yes, what I said was true. Is that
too difficult for you to understand?

[Marvin the Martian]

I quote Wikepedia for their CO2 absorption information all the time.
Since Wikepedia is in the bag for the AGW frauds, it isn't likely that
the AGW dupes are going to pull an ad hom on Wikepedia.

Yet their own data shows that more CO2 SHOULDN'T cause any more warming.

[be...@iwaynet.net]

Obviously this scientist is just one more kook with a tinfoil helmet who
doesn't read Scientific American or Wikipedia! Everybody here knows that
"the climate catastrophe" is "settled, accepted science". I'm sure Sam
Wormley can provide him a link to a paper that proves CO2 is a
greenhouse gas!

[be...@iwaynet.net]

On 2/10/2012 6:52 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:

> And yet, they did lie and the recent information that shows that they
> lied about ice caps and glaciers melting that really were not proves
> that.
>
> You seem to be so stupid that you can't distinguish the fact that even a
> known liar may tell the truth from time to time just to throw people off.
>
> Yes, they are known to have lied and yes, what I said was true. Is that
> too difficult for you to understand?

Official media lying? What are you some "conspiracy theorist"? Next
thing you know you'll be accusing those who print a world atlas of
melting the Greenland ice just a bit faster than it already is. BWahahaha!

Oh Wait!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/sep/20/times-atlas-incorrect-greenland

Of course one little "white lie" doesn't make all the maps in the atlas
wrong...though they might be.

[gordo]

What are globally warmed panties? Can I get them in mens shorts?

You mean someone in Germany wrote a book? Is it published in a science
journal or is it just another author trying to make a buck in an
industry where they are locking the doors on book stores.

Forget it ,the book will go nowhere. Now if you really want a book on
the subject try the Merchants of Doubt. It is a historical peer
reviewed book. Because of that it can be quoted when any researcher
wants to use it in their science paper. Dr. Singer mentioned in the
book has written rebuttals in the press but never dared to try to
publish in a science journal.

[AGWFacts]

On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 11:22:56 -0600, Marvin the Martian
<mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:

> Basically, another scientist backs up the Svensmark theory of climate
> change.

Svensmark doe snot have a theory of climate change.

> http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,813814,00.html

Debunked already:

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/Home/Archive/Cern_study_gives_insight_into_cloud_formation.html?cid=30994792

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364682611000691

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0706/0706.4294v1.pdf

http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Solar_Irradiance.txt

http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Solrad.jpg

http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant

http://members.cox.net/rcoppock/Climax.jpg

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Changes_In_Solar_Brightness_Too_Weak_To_Explain_Global_Warming_999.html

http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn12234-suns-activity-rules-out-link-to-global-warming.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7327393.stm

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090511122425.htm

http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/documentation/pressReleases/2004/pressRelease20040802/

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/07/no-link-between.html

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=42




--
"I am not ignorant simply because I choose to believe one
theory over another." -- Madison Murphy

[AGWFacts]

On Thu, 9 Feb 2012 14:14:07 -0800 (PST),
"erschro...@gmail.com" <erschro...@gmail.com> wrote:

In fact the only known person Varenholt has allowed to read his
book (Marotzke) has said most of what Varenholt wrote has been
refuted. LOL!

[AGWFacts]

On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:05:48 +1300, Eric Stevens
<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:

> On Thu, 9 Feb 2012 14:14:07 -0800 (PST), "erschro...@gmail.com"
> <erschro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Feb 9, 12:22 pm, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
> >> Basically, another scientist backs up the Svensmark theory of climate
> >> change.
> >>
> >> http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,813814,00.html
> >>
> >> He wants to break a taboo. "The climate catastrophe is not occurring," he
> >> writes in his book "Die Kalte Sonne" (The Cold Sun), published by Hoffmann
> >> and Campe, which will be in bookstores next week.
> >
> >So it wasn't published in peer-reviewed scientific journal? That
> >makes it as valid as book on Bigfoot.
> >
> >Varenholt is also a utility company executive.

> He was also the best known environmentalist in the German Social
> Democrat party.

And you believe that means Varenholt isn't wrong? LOL!

[Eric Stevens]

On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 18:38:20 -0700, AGWFacts <AGWF...@ipcc.org>
wrote:

I wouldn't have a clue. I haven't got his book and can't read German
worth a damn anyway. I suspect that you are in much the same
situation.

One of the differences between us is that you already know its wrong
while I'm withholding my opinions until I have a chance to find out
what he says.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Fast Mind]

Marvin the Martian :

I don't trust scientists. They work for the government and they're
all alike.

You're a dupe. Probably an advocate of Keynesian economic theory and
an opponent of Supply Side Economics.

[AGWFacts]

On Sun, 12 Feb 2012 18:36:23 -0700, AGWFacts <AGWF...@ipcc.org>
wrote:

Not even a "Thank you" from the moron.