NoTricksZone reports:
Georg Ehring of German Public Radio conducted an interview with climate scientist Professor Hans von Storch, Director of the German Coastal Research Center.
The introductory text before the interview reads as follows:
The Earth has warmed considerably less than expected over the past 15 years days, says Hans von Storch. That may be due to an unforeseeable climate variability, or that CO2′s effect as a greenhouse gas was over-estimated, so says the meteorologist of the Coastal Research Institute.
If anything, this interview shows that German climate science is beginning a slow shift and that warmist scientists starting to come to terms with the real possibility that they have been wrong all these years – possibly very wrong. It also shows that they are admitting that climate is poorly understood. The science in nowhere near understood, let alone settled.
“may be due to an unforeseeable climate variability, or that CO2′s effect as a greenhouse gas was over-estimated,” – You mean kinda like we skeptics have been pointing out the last few years or so?
So I have a question. I am just a dumb hick but why is it CO2 reflects the radiant heat from the ground and atmosphere back to the earth but does not reflect the same wavelengths from outside the earth away from earth? Shouldn’t CO2 work both ways or is it like a one way mirror that you can see through from one side but a mirror on the other? Also, when it gets hot there is more evaporation that causes droughts according the AGWers, doesn’t that create more clouds that block the sun from the surface and thus keep temperatures in check? Just a dumb hick asking questions.
This whole mess began with the unproven theory that CO2 MIGHT BE a significant greenhouse gas. It jumped into the models right away as a prime driver without any evidence or even any plausibility that this tiny atmospheric ingredient might really drive climate in any way. Al Gore noted that the theory was proposed (conjectured) by one of his Harvard professors years ago. The professor never said it was probable or even likely. However, there is a very important human driver behind all this, a conviction that the industrial revolution is fundamentally a ruinous development. At one time the problem was soot. When that problem was solved by the application of new technologies and regulation, then there must be SOMETHING bad that we were doing. CO2 was perfect, because we make lots of it, even by breathing. When it fails, they will find something else, probably with scary words attached such as “atomic radiation,” “chemicals,” “microbes” and so on. Whatever it is, you can bet that it will be the fault of humans trying to make money and trying to live the good life, a sinful concept if there ever was one.
“It could be that the climate models are completely okay and that nothing bad can be said about them. But we haven’t put all the ingredients which we believe are important for the future into them.”
Try replacing the words “climate models” with literally anything else.
The cake is completely okay, we just didn’t put the flour in it.
The car runs fine, it just doesn’t have a transmission in it.
The model of the solar system is great, we just didn’t include Jupiter.
Of course the retraction will be buried on page 30 while the next big reason to panic is plastered across the front page. The scientists will quietly come to a new understanding in the high hallowed halls of academia without bothering to notify the general public. The textbooks will be left in circulation for another 10 years, and the activists will claim the warming didn’t happen thanks to all their hard work just like they did with the “hole in the ozone layer” which went away after they banned CFCs or the population density of bald eagles that resurged after they banned DDT.