In memoriam Ernst-Georg Beck

Geen categorie29 sep 2010, 16:29
Ernst-Georg Beck
De bekende Duitse klimaatscepticus Ernst-Georg Beck is onlangs aan een slepende ziekte overleden. Ik heb hem twee keer persoonlijk ontmoet. Eén keer bij een mini-symposium ten huize van Arthur Rörsch en één keer tijdens een tv-discussie in Berlijn waar hij naast mij zat (zie hier).
In het klimaatsceptische circuit is met grote droefheid gereageerd op zijn heengaan.
Tim Ball schreef over hem:

Ernst-Georg Beck was a scholar and gentleman in every sense of the term
I was saddened to hear that Ernst Georg Beck died after a battle with cancer. I was flattered when he asked me to review one of his early papers on the historic pattern of atmospheric CO2 and its relationship to global warming. I was struck by the precision, detail and perceptiveness of his work and urged its publication. I also warned him about the personal attacks and unscientific challenges he could expect. On 6 November 2009 he wrote to me, “In Germany the situation is comparable to the times of medieval inquisition.”

Fortunately, he was not deterred. His friend Edgar Gärtner explained Ernst’s contribution in his obituary. “Due to his immense specialized knowledge and his methodical severity Ernst very promptly noticed numerous inconsistencies in the statements of the Intergovernmental Penal on Climate Change IPCC. He considered the warming of the earth’s atmosphere as a result of a rise of the carbon dioxide content of the air of approximately 0.03 to 0.04 percent as impossible. And it doubted that the curve of the CO2 increase noted on the Hawaii volcano Mauna Loa since 1957/58 could be extrapolated linear back to the 19th century.”

Meer nog dan de kritiek van Steve McIntyre en Ross McKitrick op de hockey stick-grafiek, vormde het werk van Beck een dodelijke aanval op de menselijke broeikashypothese en daarmee dus ook op de geloofwaardigheid van het VN-Klimaatpanel (IPCC).
Tim Ball legt uit waarom:

A key claim of the hypothesis known as anthropogenic global warming (AGW), is that human activities and particularly industry, are producing CO2 that is causing warming and climate change. There were critical points they had to establish to prove their case. As they did with almost all issues, they created the data they needed by manipulating modern and historic records or creating computer-generated results that became ‘real’ data.

They had to show that,

• Increases in atmospheric CO2 caused temperature increase in the historic record.
• Current levels are unusually high relative to the historic record.
• Current levels are much higher than pre-industrial levels.
• The differences between pre-industrial and current atmospheric levels are due to human additions of CO2 to the atmosphere.

Beck’s work showed the fallacy of these claims.

In plaats daarvan reconstrueerde Beck de volgende grafiek op basis van oude chemische metingen.
Hij kreeg daarmee natuurlijk het hele AGW-'establishment' over zich heen.
Tim Ball:

It’s an axiom that the more someone is personally attacked and vilified, the higher likelihood their work is valid. We also know from the leaked emails the extent to which official climate science, controlled by the CRU people who also controlled the IPCC, worked to block publication of research that falsified their claims. One journal, Energy and Environment (E and E) showed integrity and courage led by its editor Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, but was attacked by the CRU gang. On 28 October 2009 Phil Jones wrote to Hull University trying to stop Boehmer–Christiansen using her affiliation with that Institute. “You are probably aware of this, but the journal Sonja edits is at the very bottom of almost all climate scientists lists of journals to read.” Ironically, this is likely true because they didn’t want to read the truth. E and E published McIntrye and McKitrick’s first exposure of the hockey stick and Beck’s first major work on the 19th century record.

Beck's werk wordt overigens niet alleen door AGW-protagonisten bekritiseerd. Ook bekende klimaatsceptici als Hans Erren en Ferdinand Engelbeen, achten de oude metingen waarop Beck zijn reconstructie baseert niet betrouwbaar. Zo af en toe correspondeerden zij met elkaar daarover, waarbij de gemoederen soms hoog opliepen. (Ja, dat gebeurt ook tussen klimaatsceptici onderling!) Een enkele keer mocht ik wat modererend tussenbeide komen.
Naar mijn gevoel is die discussie nog niet gesloten. Dat is een reden te meer dat het overlijden van Ernst-Georg Beck als een groot verlies moet worden beschouwd.
Tim Ball concludeert:

Ernst Georg Beck was a scholar and gentleman in every sense of the term. His friend wrote, “They tried to denounce Ernst Georg Beck in the Internet as naive amateur and data counterfeiter. Unfortunately, Ernst could hardly defend himself in the last months because of its progressive illness.” His work, determination and ethics were all directed at answering questions in the skeptical method that is true science; the antithesis of the efforts of all those who challenged and tried to block or denigrate him. Thank you Ernst.

Ik sluit mij daar van harte bij aan. We zullen hem erg missen. Maar gelukkig heeft hij met zijn publicaties en internetactiviteiten een indrukwekkend erfenis nagelaten.
Ga verder met lezen
Dit vind je misschien ook leuk
Laat mensen jouw mening weten