Sunday
Mar062011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Schmidt calls IPCC "fraudsters"
Mar 6, 2011 Climate: IPCC Former German chancellor Helmut Schmidt, that is, not Gavin.
The climate policy adopted by many governments is still in its infancy. The publications provided by an international group of scientists (the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC) have encountered skepticism, especially since some of their researchers have shown themselves to be fraudsters (Betrüger). In any case, some governments' publicly stated targets are far less scientific, but rather politically endorsed.
Full story here.
Reader Comments (23)
Does this mean that the government will repeal the Climate Change Act 2008, since it was based on the work of fraudsters?
Ah, 'betrüger' again. Now that word has come up before.
Yet again highlights the major unanswered question about Climategate: 'Why have the 'frauds' never sued their accusers?
Is that a bottle of Marstons Pedigree I see....
With your headline, have you given Gavin his get-out spin?
But good to see that even a socialist like Helmut can see the light, or perhaps merely spot which way the political wind is blowing - good news in either case.
I know,....where I have I heard this 'Betruger' thing?
The Germans appear to be coming to their senses (admittedly very slowly). I suspect that it is beginning to dawn on the politicians that steps taken to go green will have a huge impact upon German industry and its competitive, and that this will threaten Germany's position as one of the great power houses of the world.
As far as the UK is concerned, nothing will change. With the LibDems in charge of energy and Call me Dave a signed up supporter, how could it? Previous governments (and the unions in the 60s & 70s) have already destroyed most of British industry. The Politicians and the Media have invested too much and have personal interests in the green project to start changing tack at this stage. Pity, since a repeal of the Climate Change Act would go a long way to cutting down the deficit and if the Government were to stop energy suppliers from charging a premium for energy (to off-set the costs of going green0, this would give the consumer some further money in their pocket which would no doubt enecourage High Street spending and aid a consumer based recovery. Unfortunately, one cannot expect commonsense from politicians and they are motivated by self interest.
Shub
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/02/mojib-latif-on-zdf-fraud-to-public.html
BH – I lost count of router re-boots at #11. Please keep on at Squarespace about this. It is irritating beyond belief.
Mikes Nature betrug ?
Good for Schmidt! We need more like him, preferably British, preferably active not retired.
I despair of UK politicians; they show no sign of pulling back from the crazy target of an 80% reduction in CO2 production and the havoc this must wreak in our manufacturing industry.
One possible ray of sunshine is that in the US and Germany realism seems to be returning slowly. Our lot, incapable of seeing how damaging the current policy, may one day learn by example from overseas.
The guiltiest men are the government science advisors. When one day in the future the AGW myth is universally rejected, may their reputations be dragged through the mud. Unsceptical scientists?! A travesty and a contradiction in terms!
Very amazing, Helmut Schmidt is a social democrat (SPD)!
i.e. more leftist than an american democrat!
Wow, it was a keynote speech ("Responsibility of Scientific Research in the 21st Century.") to the Max-Planck-Gesellschaft, Germany's most eminent science organisation. Wonder if Paul Nurse is taking note....
Schmidt disappoints. - gavin.
Pleased with, but not at all surprised by Helmut Schmidt's position. As I have always thought, the left/right divide, like the flowers that bloom in the spring - tra la, has "nothing to do with the case". Branding all sceptics as aging right-wing rednecks as opposed to the virtuous youthfull left has long been one of warmists' favourite red herrings.
Agreed, an a ageing lefty sceptic. Bad science is just that, bad science. politics does not come into it.
Brent Hargreaves
"When one day in the future the AGW myth is universally rejected, may their reputations be dragged through the mud. Unsceptical scientists?"
Prison was more what I had in mind.
Hopefully this will be used effectively in the upcoming Spectator debate.
Well - expect the fur starting to fly in Germany any minute now!
The former Chancellor Helmut Schmidt is a national icon; this lecture was at the top scientific society in Germany, so there will be reports in the German MSM. Politicians won't be able to sweep this under the carpet - and the ordinary people will now no longer be scared to ask them painful questions.
After all, if Schmidt can say it - they can!
Btw, and a bit OT, but apparently Herr Schmidt is an inveterate smoker, and will smoke even on publicTV, during an interview, anti-smoking law or not ...
Jimmy Haigh
@ 9:44pm above... Amusing.
I'm not sure it's helpful even to joke about prison for scientists for being wrong. This is the kind of thing the Lysenkoists want because they need and want to silence dissent.
The penalties should be directed at those people who were
1/ stupid and credulous enough to mistake a speculative infant pseudo-science - essentially geomancy for the 20th century - for rigid empirical physics, and
2 in a position of power such that they made stupid decisions on the back of poor information.
The condign penalty would be not to vote for such people ever again.
The trouble is, this means the only people voting wuld be the mugs who fall only into 1/ above.
Perhaps the answer, pace Not the Nine O'Clock News, is simply to cut their goolies off?
Reposted comments from http://autonomousmind.wordpress.com/2011/03/06/5-star-blogging-77/
Schmidt's piece looks promising until you read:-
“It seems to me that the time has come that one of our top scientific organisations should scrutinise, under the microscope, the work of the IPCC, in a critical and realistical way,…”
I realised that he’s only proposing another whitewash, based on the pioneering work of Oxburgh, Rees and the rest..
Looking at the German original is even more discouraging. As well as talking (in effect) about ‘peak oil, coal and gas’ and the long term need to switch to nuclear, solar and wind; Schmidt curiously ignores the German move back towards coal & lignite.
He also seems to think we should have a EU Common Energy Policy.
Hmmmm. I’d rather not, thanks Helmut!
Those who experienced the style of H. Schmidt know, that when he asks to scrutinize the work of the IPPC, he does not ask to "whitewash". When he says Betrüger he means Fraudster. When he speaks about GW he does not automatically mean AGW.
The speech was delivered in January and has not been published by the MSM, which is logical because HS is too popular to openly publish and question his opinions when they are politically inconvenient.
It makes sense to read the full "Global Warming" chapter of Helmut Schmidt's speech to put things in context. I translated the whole piece and think that the portion discussed in this blog is now closer to the original German meaning. (Some editing may still be needed to polish the English).
"Global Warming
In addition to all the aforementioned problems caused by humans, we are at the same time concerned by the phenomenon of global warming and its supposed consequences. We know that there have always been natural ice ages and warm periods; however we do not know how big the present and future contribution of man to today’s global warming is. The so called climate policy operated internationally by many governments is still in its infancy. The documents delivered so far by an international group of scientists (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC) encounter skepticism, especially since some of the participating scientists have proven to be fraudsters. In any case, the objectives publicly stated by some governments are less scientifically, but in fact just politically justified.
It seems to me that time has come that one of our top scientific organizations critically and realistically scrutinizes under the magnifier the work of the IPCC and presents the resulting conclusions to the Public of our country in a comprehensible way.
In order to effectively reduce the human contribution to global warming, it seems to be important to switch in the 21st Century from hydrocarbons to other energy sources. This will also be necessary in the long term, because the existing reserves of crude oil, natural gas, coal, lignite, etc., are limited. For the next decades, nuclear, solar and wind energies come into consideration (hydropower certainly only in a few geographic exceptions).
The European countries have opted for different energy policies, so far: England, Holland and Norway rely on their own reserves of hydrocarbons, France has made its electricity supply largely on nuclear energy; Germany is in the process to do without nuclear power as well as without its own - very expensive - coal and relies increasingly on imported hydrocarbons. Other European countries behave similarly. Solar and wind energies play a secondary but increasing role.
There is no common energy policy of the European Union for the time being. However, it is fairly certain that an answer to this question must be found over the next decades. In particular, the inevitable transition from hydrocarbons to other energy sources requires at first high expenditures in research and development, especially in Basic Research, to make renewable energy usable as suitable alternative.”
I was astonished to note that the CBI, no less, wishes to appoint a Head of Climate Change and Environment (Sunday Times Appointments; 6th March) - and that (visiting their website) they have a Climate Change BOARD..! This, as they proudly claim, is the 'largest employers lobbying organisation' - which amongst their 'green' aims is to get the government to:
'Clear the backlog of delayed planning applications'
That strikes me as shorthand for:
'Ride roughshod over Localism and get useless but profitable windfarms built'.
Other aims include:
'Approve the first Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) demonstration project, and
Ensure long-term incentives for the success of electric vehicles beyond 2012'. (This of course in the context of Steve Holliday's little gem the other day, that we have no right to depend on electricity supplies in future..)
Lobbying the government to be 'even greener', in the light of what Helmut Shmidt amounts to 'fraudulent' science seems to me to a bit like turkeys voting for Christmas - I thought we wanted more manufacturing in this country, not less due to loony government policies..
It's still not looking good, is it..?