Even if the climate is changing in a natural cycle, it still doesn't change that fact that we are 1. running out of oil 2. chocking on pollution 3. being held hostage by oil companies, and 4. unprepared for these climate changes and how they will affect our environment.

It really doesn't matter what is causing the global warming /climate change/ changing weather patters or what ever else you want to call it. It IS happening and we are not prepared.

given that "...For many years, (he) was an active supporter of the IPCC and its CO2 theory."

And he did not say that "climate change (is) a hoax." If you read the entire piece, he says:

Firstly, we need comprehensive research on the underestimated role of natural climate drivers. Secondly, the likely warming pause over the coming decades gives us time to convert our energy supply in a planned and sustainable way, without the massive poverty currently planned.

In the UK and Germany, for example, power-station closures and huge expenditure for backup of volatile wind or solar energy or harmful ethanol production will raise energy prices massively and even threaten power cuts: the economic cost will be crippling, all driven by fear.

We now have time for rational decarbonising. This may be achieved by cost-improved and competitive renewable technologies at the best European sites, through higher energy efficiency and by improving the use of conventional fossil energy.


He is advocating a move to renewable energy sources in a controlled, planned, and rational manner rather than a fear-induced, the-sky-is-falling panic that disregards the economic impact to tens, if not hundreds, of millions of people.

"In February 2010, I was invited as a reviewer for the IPCC report on renewable energy. I realised that the drafting of the report was done in anything but a scientific manner. The report was littered with errors and a member of Greenpeace edited the final version."

The point of my post is that they are having the wrong argument - the cause of global warming/climate change, etc - we don't really need to know what the cause is. We need to be prepared, and sooner than in "coming decades" as he seems to think we have all the time in the world. The world disagrees. His idea of a "warming pause" is nothing more than a theory. What if that theory is wrong?

Being prepared, taking positive action NOW is not a fear-induced motivation. The move toward renewable will only impact the bottom line of the oil companies. There are already hundreds of millions of people in poverty who don't have access to simple power and water. Moving forward with renewable energy sources will improve their lives.

Look, this is extremely basic science. CO2 traps heat. More CO2 equals more heat. More heat means more disruption and destabilization of the current climate. This isn't fucking rocket science.

The only real reason for disagreeing with that fairly basic premise, which is supported by the vast majority of climate scientists, is if you're aiming to mislead people about the real-world effects of CO2. And that's completely aside from the fact that the "Temperature is based on solar cycles, not on manmade activity" meme is one that has largely been created by the right-wing to rationalize global warming without mentioning the effects of fossil fuels.

If the IPCC's current climate models cannot explain the climate history of the past 10,000 years, how can they predict the future?

Do you think we humans know everything there is to know about our global climate and all of the factors that influence it?

What's the answer to that question?

Even if your suggestion were correct, you'd be asking us to believe that because somebody doesn't know every aspect about how a car runs, therefore they can't understand that running an engine without oil is bad for it. It's not realistic by any stretch of the imagination. Talking about climate models doesn't negate the very real fact that CO2 is a proven greenhouse gas, and retaining more heat disrupts existing ecosystems.

because we have little chance of changing in the time frame most scientists think we have. All I know is that we need to move as rapidly as we can because we are facing a disaster beyond anything humans have experienced.

Posted on 15 February 2012

German electric utility executive Fritz Vahrenholt is co-author (along with geologist Sebastian Lüning) of a book expressing "skepticism" regarding the human contribution to global warming, which predictably has been trumpeted by the usual climate denial enablers. Why should we particularly care what Vahrenholt thinks about climate science? That is something of a mystery - he has a PhD in chemistry and has worked in the energy sector for Shell Oil and wind turbine maker RePower. Vahrenholt and Lüning both currently work for RWE Innogy, Germany's second-largest energy company (Vahrenholt as a manager, Lüning as a scientist in its oil and gas division).

Vahrenholt admits he has no expertise in climate science, but apparently his status as "Germany’s Top Environmentalist" (a title which Vahrenholt appears to have been awarded just recently by anti-climate think tanks and denialists) and his climate "skepticism" are sufficient for some people to take his climate claims seriously.

In an interview with Der Spiegel, Vahrenholt discusses why he chose to write a book rather than attempting to conduct and publish scientific research. (Comment: LOLOLOLOLOL)

http://www.skepticalscience.com/fritz-vahrenholt-duped-on-climate-change.html

logicman at 20:34 PM on 14 February, 2012
The ever-sensible Germans have taken to calling Fritz Vahrenholt 'feuer-fritz'. If I have it right, that's the nickname for a fireman or stoker: one who shovels coal. Whatever he's shoveling, it sure isn't science.

Pure propaganda BS.

Enjoy your stay.

Something tells me he didn't read nearly enough.