Two more global warming scientists turn skeptics

Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

Two more global warming scientists, this time in Germany, have become global warming skeptics.

One of the fathers of Germany’s modern green movement, Professor Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt, a social democrat and green activist, decided to author a climate science skeptical book together with geologist/paleontologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning. Vahrenholt’s skepticism started when he was asked to review an IPCC report on renewable energy. He found hundreds of errors. When he pointed them out, IPCC officials simply brushed them aside. Stunned, he asked himself, “Is this the way they approached the climate assessment reports?”

Vahrenholt decided to do some digging. His colleague Dr. Lüning also gave him a copy of Andrew Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion. He was horrified by the sloppiness and deception he found. Persuaded by Hoffmann & Campe, he and Lüning decided to write the book. Die kalte Sonne [The Cold Sun] cites 800 sources and has over 80 charts and figures. It examines and summarizes the latest science.

[The c]onclusion: climate catastrophe is called off. The science was hyped.



  • Rene Borbon

    It’s real simple: the global warming alarmists claim is that CO2, coming from our mouths, automobiles, and industrial activity has a greater influence on the Earth’s temperature than the Sun. That’s an outrageously extravagant and dismissive claim, a political ideology, a religion. Showing various hockey stick temperature graphs, based alternately on tree rings, terrestrial weather stations, and CO2 found in ice, do nothing but compound the skepticism.

    The right approach to science is to create a theory and then test the theory to find out if it holds up to the scientific method, not dogmatically claim that CO2 in the atmosphere is warming the Earth, despite the changes in the Sun’s radiance.

    Are we emerging from an age of ignorant group think, a dark age of religious global climate change dogmatism? Maybe.

    For those of you hockey stick graph enthusiasts, I encourage you to reduce your CO2 exhalations by 50% over the next 5 years.

  • Jim

    Its interesting you note two who have changed their mind to the skeptics side, when the whole science of climatology has been changing over decades to the believer side (20 years ago very few scientific organizations supported the idea of AGW as a problem, and now they all do).
    But since you mention two, here are two going the other way:
    Curt Stager, PhD, paleoclimatologist:
    Worth listening to his two minute testimony.

    And also Kerry Emanuel, professor of atmospheric science at MIT:
    He said this in an interview:
    “Well, you know, I think it’s perfectly justified to change one’s opinion if it’s what the evidence warrants. I myself changed my opinion. I mean, back 20 years ago. I said, you know, the evidence really isn’t there yet. We really need a lot more before we can say that. But 20 years have gone by. A lot more evidence exists now, and I changed my mind about it. I think that’s fine. I don’t know why anybody in this particular issue would change their mind in the opposite direction.”

  • Chris Kirkendall

    Yeah – except that it’s clear that there has been NO warming at ALL since 1998 – despite CO2 levels rising. The theory predicts we should be seeing warming, and we’re not. Remember too that a lot of folks – even Scientists – were influenced by data from the IPCC, which we now know beyond all doubt (some have even admitted it) was manipulated. They deliberately hid any data that showed warming was NOT happening. Rene makes a great point: What is the ultimate source of ALL heat here on Earth? The Sun, of course! If the Sun winked out tonmorrow, we’d be plunged into the worst global Ice Age ever in a matter of weeks – in fact, all life would soon cease to exist. So when considering warming or cooling of the planet, BY FAR the biggest factor is the heat SOURCE. We’ve known for at least a Century that the Sun goes thu active & inactive sunspot cycles, and during active times, puts out more energy, less energy during inactive cycles. Many of the “warmest years on record” just happen to coincide with active periods on the Sun. Coincidence? We also know that the Sun sometimes goes into long-range cooling cycles (like the Maunder Minimum) which corresponded with extraordinarily cool years with harsh winters & virtually no Summers. And finally, we know for a fact that there have been numerous periods on Earth that were warmer than we are now – yet there was no man-made component whatsoever because it preceded human civilization in some cases, or fossil-fuel generation of CO2 in others. How do we explain warming occurring without Man’s influence in those cases? The argument for Man-Made Global Warming is weak & getting weaker by the day…

  • Rene Borbon


    I put those questions to the global warming believers– what caused the extreme warming prior to the rise of civilization and industrialization? — and you know what — they are never answered, except for a hockey stick graph in response. It’s very stupid to keep repeating the same graphs over and over again, when simple logic would beg the question, what caused all the warming from the last great ice age maximum, some 30,000 years ago? Was it industrial CO2? Nope. could have been the Sun. Yep!

    THE WARMING CLAIMERS NEVER ANSWER THIS QUESTION OR EVEN ATTEMPT OT ANSWER IT. It is the global warming claimers that are the deniers.

    It is plain stupidity to claim that CO2 in the atmosphere has a greater influence on climate than the burning ball of fire in the sky, we cannot look directly at, without protection for our eyes.

    The problem is a religious problem, the warming fanatics cannot answer this question, nor accept their dogma is short-sighted and ultimately greatly flawed. The global warming claims are not supported by solid scientific evidence, unlike the gold standard~~ Einstein’s Relativity.

  • Jim

    I hate to be stupid. So I will try a different approach.
    Up above I listed a link to Carl Stager, who as noted is a paleoclimatologist. He studies climate in the past. He is a global warming skeptic turned believer.
    An interesting read is this essay he wrote about warming periods in the past, specifically the PETM.
    You will note that he says science believes that during this warming period huge amounts of greenhouse gasses were released to the atmosphere. Since this happened 56M years ago, we can only do our best to surmise what caused it. Of course, we know it was not automobiles (see- not stupid anymore!). But to the best of our ability scientists believe it was caused by coal seams and melting of methane hydrates on the ocean floor.
    For those concerned, please be assured that no hockey sticks were abused in the presentation of his essay.
    So there is a scientist, not Jim, ‘attempting’ to explain to you what has occurred in the past, and how it relates to today’s climate. And he is concerned.
    I am sure it does not convince you, but so be it. He has tried. You may disagree with him, but I know he is not stupid.

  • Kelly Starks

    The problem is thet data doesn’t support CO2 driving temp, but rather that it is driven by temp changes – since the CO2 rises follow, not lead, global warming perids ni history.

    As for us now, Earths desent into the little ice age (which the hocky stick didn’t include) adn rise now to ALMOST as warm as 1,000 years ago, folows the solar changes, and syncs up with observable similar “climate” shifts on other planets in the solar system. Things like this are why only a small fraction of climatologists beleave in the global warmnig hypothosis.

  • Rene Borbon


    You need to read the article you mentioned carefully. Here are the choice words/phrases that appear throughout the article:

    may have
    may also have
    perhaps (again)
    even the best paleo studies can’t fully inform us

    The article is full of conjecture and wishful thinking. These words/phrases hardly inspire rigorous scientific conclusion. My conclusion: the burden of proof in this article is shifted back to the global warming doomsayers.

    My favorite stupid line in the article: “People can be as skeptical as they want
    about global warming resulting from human carbon emissions,” he told me
    recently, “but the geological fact is that this kind of thing really has
    happened before.”

    Oh really! When was the last time that global warming occurred from human carbon emissions? Do tell!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *