Views: 11740|Replies: 47

German Chemist Slams Scaremongering By U.N.’s IPCC [Copy link] 中文

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2013-4-28 10:10:45 |Display all floors
German Chemist Slams Scaremongering By U.N.’s IPCC

IPCCAccused-e1328889466350.jpg


The IPCC is guilty of shoddy research and pursuing political goals.



Fritz Vahrenholt, a chemist with the German company RWE has stated that global warming arguments are supported by “weak science.”

Vanhrenholt claims that reduced solar activity will end up causing the earth to cool down in years to come rather than get hotter.

He notes: “The climate catastrophe is not occurring. In my experience as an energy expert, I learned that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is more of a political than a scientific body. As a rapporteur on renewable energy, I witnessed how thin the factual basis is for predictions that are made at the IPCC.” “I say that global warming will remain below two degrees by the end of the century.“My concern is that if citizens discover that the people who warn of a climate disaster are only telling half the truth, they will no longer be prepared to pay higher electricity costs for wind and solar.“I am indeed saying that climate change is manageable, because the cooling effects of the sun and the ocean currents give us enough time to prepare.Vahrenholt was once a supporter of the theory of man-made climate change, but he has changed his mind. In an interview on the The Global Warming Policy Foundation site, he explains why.Here is an excerpt from that interview:

Welt Online: You have supported the IPCC’s paradigm for many years. Now you are publishing a book in which you questioned the doctrine of global climate change. How did this change of heart happen?Vahrenholt: Yes, I was an active supporter of the CO2 theory. But then I had two pivotal moments that have inspired me to reassess my position.First, I was invited in February 2010 as a scientific reviewer for the IPCC report on renewable energy in Washington. There, I realized that the drafting of the report was done in anything but a scientific manner. The report is littered with errors. At the end, representatives of Greenpeace edited the final version. The result was the nonsensical claim that 80 percent of total world energy needs can be met with renewable energy.These developments shocked me. I thought, if such things can happen in this report, then they might happen in other IPCC reports too. Of the 34 members of the IPCC Secretariat, the bulk are from the global South – such as Cuba, Sudan, Madagascar, Iran or China. These countries all have an interest in transfer payments. Until then, I had thought researchers would meet and discuss. No, in fact these are delegates representing nation states – and not always democratic ones. They represent interests and exert influence.Welt Online: And the second key experience?Vahrenholt: At RWE Innogy, we were confronted with the fact that the wind and the corresponding power generation were dipping by an appreciable extent. I investigated this phenomenon scientifically and found that it has nothing to do with CO2 and global warming, but that natural climate processes are responsible for it. The activity of the sun plays a major role. I have been working on the subject matter and then worked a year on this book.
Vahrenholt’s new book, The Cold Sun lays out his theories on climate change and the myth of catastrophic global warming.
Related posts:





FIRST NATIONS ( LAKOTA PEOPLE ) Heartbreaking - (Google Search for video) "to stay true to who you are. Never allow anyone make you different or think different about what it is you are created to be ...

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2013-4-28 10:26:32 |Display all floors
The UN is not a scientific body period.
(beast ex machina)

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2013-4-28 10:44:47 |Display all floors
lebeast Post time: 2013-4-28 10:26
The UN is not a scientific body period.

So.....you letting the rat leads you by the nose?


You no better than a rat in that case.
I've made my living, Mr. Thompson, in large part as a gambler. Some days I make twenty bets, some days I make none. There are weeks, sometimes months, in fact, when I don't make any bet at all because ...

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2013-4-28 11:01:49 |Display all floors
Sansukong is a no morals immoral rat. Period.
I've made my living, Mr. Thompson, in large part as a gambler. Some days I make twenty bets, some days I make none. There are weeks, sometimes months, in fact, when I don't make any bet at all because ...

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2013-4-28 11:14:50 |Display all floors
The IPCC is a scientific body of the best scientists in the world dealing with the topic.

It deals with mainstream science . The main conclusions are clear .

I've made my living, Mr. Thompson, in large part as a gambler. Some days I make twenty bets, some days I make none. There are weeks, sometimes months, in fact, when I don't make any bet at all because ...

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2013-4-28 11:31:27 |Display all floors
Conservative nature of IPCC reports
Some critics have contended that the IPCC reports tend to underestimate dangers, understate risks, and report only the "lowest common denominator" findings.[97]
On 1 February 2007, the eve of the publication of IPCC's major report on climate, a study was published suggesting that temperatures and sea levels have been rising at or above the maximum rates proposed during the last IPCC report in 2001.[98] The study compared IPCC 2001 projections on temperature and sea level change with observations. Over the six years studied, the actual temperature rise was near the top end of the range given by IPCC's 2001 projection, and the actual sea level rise was above the top of the range of the IPCC projection.
Another example of scientific research which suggests that previous estimates by the IPCC, far from overstating dangers and risks, have actually understated them is a study on projected rises in sea levels. When the researchers' analysis was "applied to the possible scenarios outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the researchers found that in 2100 sea levels would be 0.5–1.4 m [50–140 cm] above 1990 levels. These values are much greater than the 9–88 cm as projected by the IPCC itself in its Third Assessment Report, published in 2001". This may have been due, in part, to the expanding human understanding of climate.[99][100]
In reporting criticism by some scientists that IPCC's then-impending January 2007 report understates certain risks, particularly sea level rises, an AP story quoted Stefan Rahmstorf, professor of physics and oceanography at Potsdam University as saying "In a way, it is one of the strengths of the IPCC to be very conservative and cautious and not overstate any climate change risk".[101]
In his December 2006 book, Hell and High Water: Global Warming, and in an interview on Fox News on 31 January 2007, energy expert Joseph Romm noted that the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report is already out of date and omits recent observations and factors contributing to global warming, such as the release of greenhouse gases from thawing tundra.[102]
Political influence on the IPCC has been documented by the release of a memo by ExxonMobil to the Bush administration, and its effects on the IPCC's leadership. The memo led to strong Bush administration lobbying, evidently at the behest of ExxonMobil, to oust Robert Watson, a climate scientist, from the IPCC chairmanship, and to have him replaced by Pachauri, who was seen at the time as more mild-mannered and industry-friendly.[103][104]


From wikipedia.
I've made my living, Mr. Thompson, in large part as a gambler. Some days I make twenty bets, some days I make none. There are weeks, sometimes months, in fact, when I don't make any bet at all because ...

Use magic tools Report

Rank: 8Rank: 8

Post time 2013-4-28 11:38:25 |Display all floors
Whatever the merits and demerits of IPCC, it is only one of many.


All major national scientific organisations concurs with the major conclusions of the IPCC.

.....and research in this field is on going. Very dymanic, very interesting field.


But it is the anti IPCC lobby groups that rats and those of deficient morals hang on to.
I've made my living, Mr. Thompson, in large part as a gambler. Some days I make twenty bets, some days I make none. There are weeks, sometimes months, in fact, when I don't make any bet at all because ...

Use magic tools Report

You can't reply post until you log in Log in | register

BACK TO THE TOP
Contact us:Tel: (86)010-84883548, Email: blog@chinadaily.com.cn
Blog announcement:| We reserve the right, and you authorize us, to use content, including words, photos and videos, which you provide to our blog
platform, for non-profit purposes on China Daily media, comprising newspaper, website, iPad and other social media accounts.