[Strummer]

one of the fathers of the modern environmental movement

What? Where did this nonsense come from?

[Rune]

Germany

[dorlomin]

Fritz Vahrenholt worked for the IPCC and was asked by that organization to proof-read and report on errors in its previous reports. Which he did. And he found , in the 2007 report, some 293 errors which he reported to the IPCC assembly. He met with no objections to his work from the IPCC.

Source please.

Your source for this claim please, and try to avoid thousand word cut and paste odysseys. Its considered bad form on most forums and is technically copyright violation. You are only supposed to offer a short quote to support your argument, not reproduce an entire article.

[Rune]

RWE Corporate Website

Curriculum Vitae
Prof. Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt
 
Name: Prof. Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt
Date of birth: 08.05.1949
Education:
1968 - 1972 Degree in Chemistry at the University of Münster / Westphalia
Studienstiftung des Deutschen Volkes
1972 - 1974 Doctorate in the field of Chemistry (Dr. rer. nat.)
Career:
1974 - 1975 Research work at the University of Münster and at the Max Planck Institute for Carbon Research, Mülheim
1976 - 1981 Head of the section “Chemical Industry” in the Federal Environmental Agency in Berlin
1981 - 1984 Head of Department of Environmental Policy, Waste Management and Air Pollution Control at the Hessian Ministry of Regional Development, Environment, Agriculture and Forestry
1984 - 1990 Deputy Minister in the City of Hamburg Environmental Ministry
1990 - 1991 Head of Chancellery of the City of Hamburg
1991 - 1997
Senator and Principal of the City of Hamburg Environmental Ministry
Supervisory Board Chairman of Hamburgische Elektrizitätswerke HEW AG, Hamburg utility
since 1991 Lecturer at the University of Hamburg (Chemistry Department), since April 1999 Professor of the chemistry department
1998 -  2001 Member of the Board of Directors of Deutsche Shell AG with responsibility for chemicals, renewable energy, public affairs, environment, electricity, 2001 member of the supervisory board
2001-2007 Chief executive of REpower Systems AG, Hamburg
Member of the “sustainability advisory board” to chancellor Schröder and Merkel, Berlin
since 01.02.2008 Chief Executive Officer, RWE Innogy GmbH, Essen
 
Additional mandates
Member of the supervisory board of Aurubis AG , Hamburg
Member of the supervisory board of Mateco AG, Stuttgart
Chairman of the supervisory board of Rheinkraftwerk Albbruck-Dogern AG, Laufenburg
Member of the board of New York Green Exchange
Member of the “Körber-Stiftung", Hamburg
Member of the Senate of "Frauenhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V."
Member of the advisory committee of the German "Wildtier Stiftung"
Member of the supervisory board of "Putz & Partner Unternehmensberatungs AG", Hamburg

[Rune]

Fritz Vahrenholt worked for the IPCC and was asked by that organization to proof-read and report on errors in its previous reports. Which he did. And he found , in the 2007 report, some 293 errors which he reported to the IPCC assembly. He met with no objections to his work from the IPCC.

Source please.

Your source for this claim please, and try to avoid thousand word cut and paste odysseys. Its considered bad form on most forums and is technically copyright violation. You are only supposed to offer a short quote to support your argument, not reproduce an entire article.

The book. I posted the full Preface and Chapter 1.

[Strummer]

Germany

Well, I do speak german, and there is no mention anywhere of Vahrenholt being associated in any way with the green movement or the green party. He just held a few public jobs associated with environment protection, that's it, so that quote is complete bullshit (it's also not in the original Spiegel article).

[dorlomin]

The book. I posted the full Preface and Chapter 1.

I am not reading a whole book written by a crackpot to find your source. I reject your claim until you can properly source it.

[dorlomin]

Vahrenholt's specialty is renewable energy. The IPCC asked him in 2009 to proofread its summary report on renewable energy. He noted 293 errors and oversights in the thousand page report. On the first of February 2010 he cornered an IPCC expert at a conference in Washington and asked why the IPCC had not acted on his comments. They essentially brushed him off. He was not an expert in climate change, but he does know renewable energy pretty well. This led him to suspect sloppy science and other ways. He was alert to the scandal concerning the supposedly melting glaciers in the Himalayas. The IPCC's 2007 report contained the alarming prediction that they would disappear by 2035. They pooh-poohed critics, and it took them two years to correct this glaring error. Then there was the East Anglia e-mail scandal, in which it was clear that scientists were fudging the data in order to inflate the apparent danger of global warming. The whole thing smelled of foul play and politics, so he decided to do book.

Your 'source' is a comment on an Amazon book review.

You sir, are a crank.

[dorlomin]

Errors in the IPCC analysis: "Global sea levels rose continually and at an increasing rate throughout the 20th century" Wrong. They were using land-based benchmarks on coastlines which were sinking due to plate tectonics. Satellites, which reference the earth's center of gravity, show a declining rate of increase.

More bull.

God this is unreadable dreck.

[Shaved Monkey]

Just wondering weather I should be stockpiling coats, fire wood and building a greenhouse or should I wait for the peer reviewed papers to be released.
In the mean time I think I will just follow what the vast majority of scientists believe.

[Keith_McClary]

To suggest that the effects of the Sun's energy is somehow a null factor in understanding earth's warming and cooling cycles is preposterous! The burden of proof that the Sun can be relegated to a non-issue is on those that make that claim!

No.
Whether you think it's changes in the Sun, greenhouse gases or Galactic cosmic rays, the burden is on you to first have a quantitative theory of the physical mechanism and then do calculations to show it agrees with observations. The latter is called a "model".

Do Vahrenholt and Luning even have a quantitative theory of the physical mechanism, much less a computational model? Since you have read the book maybe you could describe it for us. Yes, I know, you're not THAT interested.

[Rune]

I keep telling you that I don't really have much of an opinion on either global warming or global cooling. I haven't been involved much in the discussion of it here.

Before I read these books, I had no idea that the Sun itself was treatede as a non-issue in the IPCC models of earth's climate. That seems preposterous to me.

I was aware that there had been a long lull in global warming and I was aware that the computer models had proven themselves abysmal. I was aware that sea level rise was not great and its rate of acceleration debatable.

And I was aware that IPCC projections of future warming were based on computer models. I was aware that the whole global warming argument had gotten vehement, contentious and politicized, much to my distaste (which is why I was not much interested in it).

I was aware that James Hansen had recommended Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactors and Integrated Fast Reactors to the Obama Administration as a way to combat global warming while providing baseload energy.

So that was about the extent of my awareness of goings on in global warming circles.

Then, a few months ago, I started seeing an article here and there about solar scientists who projected decades of global cooling. Then, these articles seemed more frequent, so I googled "global cooling" and found more than I thought I would find.

So I searched Amazon on the subject, bought a book, read it, and then after I had bought it, I found a reference in a reader comment on it to Vahrenholt's book, The Neglected Sun, which seemed like a much more scientifically thorough book. So I bought that one as well. It's a very good book, in my opinion.

If there is something wrong with Vahrenholt's claims about his involvement with the IPCC, I am sure that it would have already come out given the highly controversial nature of his book. His enemies would have trashed him long ago if he were telling fibs - and I am sure he must have MANY enemies by now.

Then I learned that The Cold Sun had been a bestseller in Germany, a country noted for its renewable energy emphasis.

Then, I looked into Vahrenholt's background and discovered that he was a renewable energy expert.

I don't know what to tell you but that I am someone who buys and reads a lot of books on different subjects. I have only just discovered, myself, that there has been a big controversy about this in Germany and other parts of Europe.

I really have not had much of an opinion on global warming and have not read much beyond the articles here and there that are posted on this site and a few others, the occasional piece on TV or YouTube, Al Gore's film, etc.

This is not "my theory". I am just reading about it with high interest.

I have read lots of books in my time and I can vouch that The Neglected Sun is well-written, earnest, highly-referenced with plenty of pulished papers, charts, historical records, etc.

The author appears to me to be eminently qualified and does not seem to me to be some sort of kook. I don'lt know what else to tell you.

Like I said, I don't have a strongly-felt opinion about either global warming or global cooling. But after reading these two books, my interest in the whole thing has piqued.

[dorlomin]

Before I read these books, I had no idea that the Sun itself was treatede as a non-issue in the IPCC models of earth's climate. That seems preposterous to me.

You have been corrected on this. You are wrong.

And I was aware that IPCC projections of future warming were based on computer models.

No. They are based on simple physics, they are based on observed historic temperatures.

So that was about the extent of my awareness of goings on in global warming circles.

You are clueless. And refuse to engage with counter arguments.

So I searched Amazon on the subject, bought a book, read it,

You can buy books on Amazon claiming the pyramids were built by space aliens. A book on Amazon is not a particularly robust source of science.

If there is something wrong with Vahrenholt's claims about his involvement with the IPCC, I am sure that it would have already come out given the highly controversial nature of his book.

Like his claims to be the father of environmentalism?

I don't know what to tell you but that I am someone who buys and reads a lot of books on different subjects.

I have read lots of books in my time and I can vouch that The Neglected Sun is well-written, earnest, highly-referenced with plenty of pulished papers, charts, historical records, etc.

You have no idea just how silly you sound.

Like I said, I don't have a strongly-felt opinion

That is why you are racking up a score of posts a day on the topic and spicing them up with thousands of words cut and pasted.

You dont have an opinion on it.

[Rune]

I really don't . And I said so at the beginning of the thread.

I had known that the Eemian Interglacial was much warmer than the present equivalent period in the Holocene. And I was aware that the computer models had failed horribly badly; there were articles all over about it. There were articles about it all over the place a couple of months ago.

And I had seen a post here that said that the IPCC was coming out with its 5th assessment. So I began wondering what the IPCC was going to say about the Pause and the models failures.

I gets that's when I started looking at this stuff again.

At any rate, your debate is with Vahrenholt and Luning, not me. And it looks like other people have been doing the debating for a whole year. It's just that the book has just now come out in English.

I'm surprised I was the one that informed everyone about the book itself and the huge controversy and outcry that has taken place in Europe. You'd think someone else would have noticed it.

[dorlomin]

I had known that the Eemian Interglacial was much warmer than the present equivalent period in the Holocene.

This has been repeatedly explained to you. Have you been able to understand the explanations we have given?

And I was aware that the computer models had failed horribly badly;

No they have not. This has been explained to you.

your debate is with Vahrenholt and Luning, not me.

You are wasting everyone's time. You are just spamming junk you are not able to understand or defend.

[Keith_McClary]

Before I read these books, I had no idea that the Sun itself was treatede as a non-issue in the IPCC models of earth's climate. That seems preposterous to me.

I read some of this back when it came out:

Various solar and climate physicists, like Lockwood, Haigh, Gray and others have published analyses indicating that the solar influence in the warming of the last half century is low or absent. These analyses include the magnetic field effects, which – in contrast to what Vahrenholt is saying – are not neglected by the IPCC. A few years ago, Pierce and Adams modeled the potential cloud forming effect of cosmic rays and found it wanting by more than an order of magnitude, even when the most favourable assumptions possible were made.

So it is not preposterous.
Did V&L mention this research, and that it was not neglected.
Do V&L have their own theory that indicates higher solar influence in the warming of the last half century?

If you can't answer these questions you need to re-read the book.

[Rune]

YouTube: Professor Fritz Vahrenholt - It's The Sun, Stupid: Why the Climate Catastrophe Will Not Occur

I am in the middle of the book now.

[Rune]

MailOnline

"This meaningless green drivel", by environment guru, James Lovelock: Scientist's U-turn on climate doomsday claim

Ex-climate change advocate now believes sea levels rising is not a problem
Former Nasa scientist said wind turbines were 'useless'

Change of opinion: James Lovelock once claimed that climate change would kill billions, but the environmentalist now says green movement theories are meaningless drivel

He was once a guru to  environmentalists, claiming climate change would kill billions of humans by the end of this century.

But it seems James Lovelock has had a change of heart.

On the eve of a major environmental summit, he has attacked the modern green movement – declaring its theories 'meaningless drivel'.

Almost half a century after he revealed his Gaia theory, which inspired a generation of activists, the former Nasa scientists said he believed that rising sea levels were not a problem and that wind turbines were 'useless'.

The 92-year-old described the modern green movement as a 'religion', which used guilt to gain support.

Speaking about climate change, he said: 'I'm not worried about sea-level rises.'

He added: 'At worst, I think it will be 2ft a century.'

Slamming environmentalists, he said: 'It just so happens that the green religion is now taking over from the Christian religion.

'I don't think people have noticed that, but it's got all the sort of terms that religions use. The greens use guilt. You can't win people round by saying they are guilty for putting CO2 in the air.'

Mr Lovelock said he was a firm supporter of nuclear power and even voiced his support for fracking – the controversial process of extracting gas from rock deep underground, opposed by the green movement.

He said: 'Gas is almost a giveaway in the US at the moment. They've gone for fracking in a big way.

'Let's be pragmatic and sensible and get Britain to switch everything to methane. We should be going mad on it.'

Lovelock described existing theories of 'sustainable development' – a key topic for discussion at the upcoming summit – as 'drivel'.

He suggested that humans should instead use air conditioning to deal with climate change in cities, citing Singapore as an example.

He said: 'If we all move into cities, they become the equivalent of a nest. Then another thought comes immediately from that: if that's the way the flow is going, don't stop it, let's encourage it.

'Instead of trying to save the planet by geo-engineering or whatever, you merely have to air-condition the cities.'

Speaking about Singapore he said:  'You could not have chosen a worse climate in which to build a city. It's a swamp with temperatures in the 90s every day, and very humid.

'But it is one of the most successful cities in the world. It's so much cheaper to air-condition the cities and let Gaia take care of the world. It's a much better route to go than so-called “sustainable development”, which is meaningless drivel.

Mr Lovelock, who has conducted research at Yale and Harvard universities, has been a respected member of the academic community for decades.

He discovered the presence of harmful chemicals – CFCs – in the atmosphere in the 1960s.

He developed the Gaia theory while working with Nasa.

It claims that the Earth has a  self-regulating system which has automatically controlled global temperature, atmospheric content, oxygen, ocean salinity, and other factors.

But last month, the scientist admitted that he had been 'alarmist' and 'extrapolated too far' with his doomsday-like predictions on the effects of climate change.

His latest comments came just a week before the Rio+20 summit, a major conference on climate change, to mark the anniversary of the landmark Earth Summit in 1992.

This article is also about a year old. Amazing.

This is what I get for failing to pay attention.

I wonder if the The Cold Sun controversy in Germany was related to Lovelock's about face on climate change?

[dorlomin]

You are not able to discuss this are you.

You are not able to understand what I have said.

You are just talking to yourself.

[Rune]

No. I said at the beginning of the thread that I had no strongly-felt opinion on climate change.

But I got interested in the increasingly frequent claims of a coming cooling phaseand was surprised to find more than I expected when I searched for more information. So I just finished one book by a former proponent of global warming who now claims that solar cycles are much more important.

And I am half-way through another The Neglected Sun which is very good.

And now, as I look further, I see that even James Lovelock has changed his mind on the doomsday climate. It's all bullshit, according to him.

So, I am not in a debating mode. I am in an information-gathering mode. But it appears that I am way, way too late. This stuff was au courant about a year and half ago. I just had not been paying any attention to the subject of global warming (or global cooling!) at all.

And, apparently, no one else at PO.com had been either, because certainly these are important enough developments to have raised some eyebows and merited a thread. But no one posted anything. And I didn't pick up on it myself until now.