How „climate change skeptics“ take us for a ride and fight against effective climate protection policies. [Prof. Stefan Rahmstorf] What happened - why haven’t we got anywhere in climate politics those past 15 years? To explain this, all it takes is to switch on your TV (RTL, 11 June; ntv, 7 July; ARD, 9 July 2007). and we see Fred Singer who explains us that climate change is no reason for concern…Singer explains us the same thing for 15 years, over and over again. It’s just one little detail that has changed: Until two years ago, Singer stated that there isn’t such thing as global warming. Satellite data supposedly proof that. Meanwhile, this kind of arguing has become ever so dubious. (Satellites show the same warming as surface instruments), and Singer has now made a u-turn- his new book is called Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years. It does get warmer now, but we are not responsible for it and can’t do anything about it either. Before it was Singer who denied a connection between FCKW and the ozone depletion. Still earlier on, he contributed to an Expertise, that claimed that passive smoking is not dangerous for your health. According to a Studie of the Union of Concerned Scientists [1] Singer had been working for many years for Exxon and other industrial companies, he financed organisations such as the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP), who’s business is that kind of desinformation. But still, Singer is being presented as climate expert by RTL, ntv und Report München – the spectator is made believe that Singer is a climatologist.

Before anything else: I am the one who has posted at http://www.oekologismus.de regarding a text where you, Mr. Rahmstorf, characterise [Professor Fred] Singer.
It may be interesting to know in this context that I am an earth scientist who advises politicians. As such, I usually make it a point to recommend those people not to make any policies based on climate science according to the IPCC-reports. As a matter of fact, I am one of those skeptics whom you, Mr. Rahmstorf, believe to have a moral duty to fight against.

…

[The scientist believes that] …the case that climate change is a threat is rather an alibi.

…

This is not a scientific debate but a political one. It is not about CO2 or avoiding its respective emissions. It is all about the battle between totalitarianism and liberalism, about the choice between market based economy and controlled economy, about securing national power in times when technology grants more and more freedom and individualism. It is all about control.

I am aware of raising a big and delicate issue here, whereas the climate debate is only part of it. No smoking and alcohol prohibition, public spying - both online and offline, tax laws and comsumer protection - whatever the area, you will find yourself with the same folks who want to put control against freedom, over and over again.

Environmentalism and climate are being exploited for idealistic purposes, that’s my point here. And you, Mister Rahmstorf, act in the debate as a politician, as an ideologist, and not [merely] as a scientist.

Being a scientist, you should admit that it is impossible to grant a success of any of the radical CO2-curbing policies in connection with any of the global indices of avarage temperature anomalies. It is quite possible though that we will reduce CO2 emissions as much as we can. But despite that, purely natural factors (which we cannot influence) could cause a very strong warming very rapidly. Or maybe (which would possibly have a much worse impact) a significant cooling. This is at least what temperature curves for the last years do indicate. Even Pachauri, Chairman of the IPCC, admitted recently that natural effects have overlapped global warming during the last years, so that it is no more visible. If that’s the case, then the supposed anthropogenical global warming is no longer a problem. It is rather an isolated and totally insignificant factor.

As a scientist, you should admit that your models are based on assumptions which could turn out to be not just insignificant but even wrong. You should associate yourself with science in such a way as not to deny the possibility of your own error, but should see it as an integrated part of your work. Such an attitude would not tolerate any agitation or politicisation. Something that could turn out to be fundamentally wrong should never be the basis for far reaching political actions.

As a scientist, you should teach politicians that in science “consensus” is not a criterium for truth, neither is the expression “very likely” as used in the IPCC language. There is nothing more than models, hypothesis and theories that draw a picture of reality or forcasting scenarios (reality itself is however to be strictly seperated from models…) – In fact, none of the climate models used by the IPCC was able to forcast the temperature change of the past years. Is it that difficult to communicate this simple fact which is in line with the very nature of science?

Genetics can justify political action plans in the area of arable crops or human medicine as little as quantum theory enables a choice pro or contra nuclear power, and as little as the theory of evolution should be eploited for population control. Now it is the same thing with climate science. It is little suitable to justify decision making for a specific energy policy or with regard to a limitation of mobility. As much as I know politicians, they know that.

…

Politics reacts solely upon sentiments among the population, for the purpose of maintaining political control. Now, whenever a certain lobby group manages to spark a media hype, politics will react. At first, the reaction will be rather short-term, by using means of communication rather than policies that provoke real effects. In the event of a climate change debate it is given that no political party can afford to ignore the issue of climate change and to leave it up to an opposing party. Such dynamics add fuel to the impression of a so-called „consensus“ about unavoidable action plans to be imposed on the people. It is in such a way that politics uses the supposedly manmade and catastrophic climate change as a useful myth.

…

I stand for freedom of speech and thus also for freedom of science. As such, I will always defend your right [Mr. Rahmstorf] to raise your concerns. I will never question your right to do your science and to communicate it.

…

However, I don’t agree with you. To the contrary, I am deeply concerned that we are about to submit ourselves to far-reaching policies, which could freeze the situation of poverty and starvation (resp. make it more difficualt to fight), which could threaten our prosperity and will deprive us from chances and opportunities to fight the kind of climate change that will happen because it is unavoidable given alone the natural processes, and to adapt accordingly. I see the CO2-avoiding strategy as an atrocity towards our children and grandchildren.

We all do care about our environment. I take the concerns of so many people seriously, although I do not share many of them. I kindly ask you to also respect my own concerns, that we are about to commit a serious mistake.

Your position must be accepted, but so must mine. I do not insinuate any obscure motives on your behalf. I just claim that you act politically rather than scientifically, and that you agitate based on your ideology. (But then, this is also allowed in our country.)

You just have to accept the fact that there exist people like me, commonly called “climate skeptics”, who are just the same seriously concerned and don’t have any obscure motives, but who’s concerns simply result in an alternative decision, which is in this case not to engage in any climate protection.

Are you still a member of a pluralistic, free and open society so as to respect people like me and to start a dialogue with such people? If your answer is yes, then it is clear that we need a debate. Such a debate is by far over, but it has just begun. I am ready for this debate and most of the other climate skeptics also. With open result.

Should you however refuse this debate and claim that everything is already decided in its basics, and that according to your opinion, this claim is valid once and forever, if you chose to debate by casting a public slur on people [you don't agree with], then I am afraid I must doubt your understanding for democracy. This will increase my concerns and will lead me to become even more sceptical, just like many other scientists and like many simple co-citizens do at the time being.

Translation from German (slightly summarized): Climatepatrol

Update 25 March 2008

Professor Rahmstorf took the time to answer these allegations her at

wissenslogs - ist die erderwaermung vorbei.

Although it may be ok to express a sceptical position and even a lack of trust towards a politically active climatologist, I agree with Professor Rahmstorf that it would be fair if “Der Physiker” would disclose his identity. Only then can a respectable debate begin in public. But maybe he is afraid of that when looking at the above cartoon.