Een van de populaire nummers op het klimaatalarmistische repertoire is de angstaanjagende zeespiegelstijging, die overigens de laatste twee jaar een sabbatical heeft genomen.
De hoogste projecties waren afkomstig van de Duitse klimaatpaus Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber (dezelfde die het Vaticaan adviseerde bij de opstelling van Laudate Si) en klimaatinquisiteur Stefan Rahmstorf van het ‘Potsdam Institut für Klimafolgenforschung’ (PIK). Hun schattingen speelden een belangrijke rol in het rapport van de Nederlandse Veerman-commissie, die vérgaande en zéér kostbare aanbevelingen deed, ten einde te voorkomen dat we natte voeten zouden krijgen in ons kikkerlandje. Maar hun schattingen waren zwaar overdreven en leken slechts bedoeld om de klimaathysterie aan te wakkeren.
Onder de titel, ‘Stefan Rahmsdorf, Climate Ex-Communicator’, schreef Willis Eschenbach onlangs op WUWT:
Stefan Rahmsdorf recently got the AGU Climate Communications Prize, despite acting like a vicious jerkwagon when his claims get questioned by mere mortals, viz:
Journalist Markus Lehmkuhland works for the German Science Journalists Association. He wrote an article about Stefan Rahmstorf called Ideology and climate change: How to silence journalists and described how Rahmstorf brutalized a freelance journalist, Irene Meichsner, who dared to question climate change even a little.
The article begins:
“A freelance journalist [Irene Meichsner] becomes the target of the renowned climate researcher Stefan Rahmstorf, who in the struggle for the supposed truth does not stop short of personal defamation.”
Meichsner actually sued Rahmstorf … and won. Unfortunately, it was a hard fight and the article ends:
“Irene Meichsner – who had to fight her legal battle for her reputation on her own – has had enough of climate issues for the time being. She no longer writes about this subject.”
Even the most famous, liberal German news magazine, Der Spiegel, generally among the climate change alarmists, published an article The Rough Methods of Climate Researcher Rahmstorf (in German and read by native-German Dr. Claudia Kubatzki) by Jan-Philipp Hein and Markus Becker.
The first paragraph makes it clear why the authors chose that title: “Journalists complain about attempts at intimidation, researchers distance themselves from the Potsdam professor.” And a little further on: “If a journalist addresses climate change and brings forth arguments that Rahmstorf finds bad, there can be trouble.
Now [?], however, he’s had to retract one of his usual BS claims due to errors that he is unwilling to specify … details here.
Aldus Eschenbach. Zie verder hier.
Zie ook hier.
Daarbij verwijst Eschenbach naar ‘Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels’ van David Adam.
Scientists have been forced to withdraw a study on projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding mistakes that undermined the findings.
The study, published in 2009 in Nature Geoscience, one of the top journals in its field, confirmed the conclusions of the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It used data over the last 22,000 years to predict that sea level would rise by between 7cm and 82cm by the end of the century.
At the time, Mark Siddall, from the Earth Sciences Department at the University of Bristol, said the study “strengthens the confidence with which one may interpret the IPCC results“. The IPCC said that sea level would probably rise by 18cm-59cm by 2100, though stressed this was based on incomplete information about ice sheet melting and that the true rise could be higher.
Many scientists criticised the IPCC approach as too conservative, and several papers since have suggested that sea level could rise more. Martin Vermeer of the Helsinki University of Technology, Finland and Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany published a study in December that projected a rise of 0.75m to 1.9m by 2100. …
Announcing the formal retraction of the paper from the journal, Siddall said: “It’s one of those things that happens. People make mistakes and mistakes happen in science.” He said there were two separate technical mistakes in the paper, which were pointed out by other scientists after it was published. A formal retraction was required, rather than a correction, because the errors undermined the study’s conclusion.
“Retraction is a regular part of the publication process,” he said. “Science is a complicated game and there are set procedures in place that act as checks and balances.”
Lees verder hier.
Grappig! Dit artikel is 7 jaar oud. Maar ik had het gemist. Het heeft destijds kennelijk de krantenkoppen niet gehaald, om nog maar te zwijgen van het NOS-journaal.
En ik heb nooit gelezen of gehoord dat het Veerman-rapport is ingetrokken, dat zwaar op deze alarmistische projecties leunt. Maar ja, zo gaan die dingen in klimaatland. Het achterhouden van cruciale informatie is endemisch, want politiek correct. Indien particulieren en/of bedrijven dit zouden doen, verdwijnen de verantwoordelijken achter de tralies.