'Technocracy, Inc.' 2.0: Queer 'Climate Expert™' Revealed as WEF 'Agenda Setter'

Another day, another revelatory insight: why is it that the 'usual suspects' are appearing everywhere at the same time?

Meet Dr. Karsten Haustein.

Wait, who?

You know, the ‘climate expert™’ who, three weeks ago, claimed that ‘we’re experiencing Earth’s hottest weather in 120,000’, as The Hill would have it. Scientific American (see here) and CBS were not far behind shouting the same nonsense from the rooftops.

No-one stopped for a moment or asked any questions. German legacy media, notorious for its lockstep approach to the current issue of the day, was the same, facts and observations to be damned.

Back in 2006, by the way, the German Meteorological Service wrote the following lines (source):

‘In the archives of the German Meteorological Service we cannot find a month that was hotter and sunnier than July 2006. This month beats all records.’ This is what Wolfgang Kusch, President of the German Meteorological Service (DWD), said with regard to the Germany-wide weather observations going back to 1901…

Read the rest here:

If 'Technocracy' is 'Rule by Experts', What is This?

Who is Dr. Karsten Haustein, By the Way?

‘Dr. Haustein is “queer”, wears T-shirts with rainbow unicorns during TV appearances, looks quite androgynous’, writes Willy Huber in a recent op-ed for Report24.

Moreover, Dr. Haustein is also 'a highly praised agenda contributor' for Klaus Schwab's WEF:

Source. Note Haustein’s focus, ‘develop[ment of] the capability to perform quasi real-time attribution analysis of extreme weather events’, which translates into: ‘paid shill reading tea leaves for clues’.

Dr. Haustein’s most recent activity is dated 4 June 2019, and here is a picture of one of his TV appearances:

Source.

Translation of the above tweet:

this is dr Karsten Haustein, climate scientist at the Institute for Meteorology at the University of Leipzig. These are the eco-socialists who, because of the climate swindle, would like to see you locked up in cities in permanent climate lockdown for 15 minutes, without freedom.

Back to Willi Huber:

Haustein also has a homepage that was actively maintained until August 2016. That was the year in which one of the first papers by him to be found on the internet appeared, ‘Real-time extreme weather event attribution with forecast seasonal SSTs’. Even then, he claimed to be able to predict extreme weather conditions based on computer models. Until this year, Haustein was apparently active at Oxford University, once an indication of people with outstanding ability—or particularly rich parents.

Of Nature and its Vicissitudes

These days, Dr. Haustein works at the University of Leipzig, Germany, which put out the following press release on 28 July 2023 (my translation and emphases):

‘The main reason for this quite worrying, though not surprising, global temperature record lies in the continued very high emissions of man-made greenhouse gases. In addition, the climate phenomenon El Niño (warming of parts of the tropical Pacific Ocean), which has developed since the beginning of the year for the first time since 2016, contributes to the drastically accelerated warming’, says Dr Karsten Haustein. The warmest month of July to date was recorded in 2019, which has been 1.3 degrees Celsius warmer compared to the pre-industrial period between 1850 and 1900, and the month of July 2023 was about 0.2 degrees Celsius warmer compared to 2019, likely surpassing the 1.5 degrees Celsius mark during a summer month for the first time, he said. ‘This does not mean that the Paris climate target of 1.5 degrees Celsius has already been permanently exceeded, as the current average man-made warming is “only” just under 1.3 degrees Celsius. But the target is getting ominously closer. Every tenth of a degree of further warming brings even more dangerous heat waves, droughts and floods. Refreshingly cool days, such as we are experiencing—ironically—right now in Central Europe, will then also become the extreme exception’, says the meteorologist from Leipzig University.

Oh, the irony. A periodical event (El Niño) plus anthropogenic CO2 is to blame.

Guess what—no legacy media outlet actually bothered to ask the seemingly unimportant question: what proportion of the ‘record heat’ is due to the former(El Niño) vs. the latter (anthropogenic carbon emissions)?

Thankfully, there is an answer—by Dr. Haustein et al. In their 2019 WEF contribution, fittingly entitled, ‘Why natural cycles only play a small role in rate of global warming’, one can learn ‘more’ (emphases mine):

The role of variability due to natural ocean cycles in global warming is a long-standing debate in climate science.

The scientific community overwhelmingly agrees that human activities are responsible for the observed increase in temperatures for the last half-century. However, the relative influences of natural drivers of climate change—such as volcanic eruptions, ocean cycles, and the sun—on warmer and cooler phases superimposed on the long-term warming trend is still an area of active research.

Translated from academese: Dr. Haustein et al. hold that there is a debate going on about the ‘ironic’ question I mentioned above.

They then move to declare the debate over (‘The scientific community overwhelmingly agrees that human activities are responsible’) before admitting that this debate is not, in fact, over (‘still an area of active research’).

In a paper published in the Journal of Climate, we find that the combination of human and natural climate forcings—increased atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases, volcanoes, solar activity and aerosols—can explain virtually all of the long-term change in the temperature record over the past 150 years.

Wonderful. What about the relative shares then?

While year-to-year ups and downs are related to the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) phenomenon, we find that variability due to slow-acting ocean cycles is not necessary to explain the longer-term changes in the historical temperature record.

And, yes, these two paragraphs follow each other. The former holds that ‘the combination of human and natural climate forcings…can explain virtually all of the long-term change in the temperature record over the past 150 years’ while the latter dismisses ‘natural climate forcings’ in the guise of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation’.

I am certain that Dr. Haustein and colleagues wonder why ‘regular people’ have a hard time taking them seriously. Or credible.

From their conclusions:

While the climate system continues to be influenced by short-term natural variability from El Niño and La Niña events, the idea that oceans have been driving the climate into colder or warmer periods for multiple decades in the past—and that they may do so in the future—is unlikely to be correct.

Most of the complex global climate models strongly support the hypothesis that oceans have only limited ability to alter global temperatures on multidecadal timescales. This study provides a support for those model results.

So, their models support their theory ‘that oceans have only limited ability to alter global temperatures on multidecadal timescales’. Is there any empirical evidence?

Rich in data splice (compilation of data deriving from different sources arrived at via different methods), Haustein et al.’s 2019 WEF piece is an effort in modelling, not empirical research.

It is little wonder that their ‘model’, which is the outcome of their hypothesis, turns out to support their ‘hypothesis’. In my book, this is called ‘circular reasoning’.

This means that we can expect future warming to be primarily driven by external forcing factors—such as human-caused greenhouse gas emissions—along with the variability associated with ENSO.

Remember their initial proposition—‘the combination of human and natural climate forcings…can explain virtually all of the long-term change in the temperature record over the past 150 years’ while the latter dismisses ‘natural climate forcings’ in the guise of the El Niño-Southern Oscillation’—and, lo and behold, in their conclusions, they haven’t moved an inch in terms of empirical observations in support of their hypothesis. But they built a model.

Speaking of their model, their ultimate paragraph reads as follows:

There are still some differences between past complex climate model simulations and observations. However, we suggest that these models should use an earlier model start date that includes strong volcanic eruptions in the early 1800s—which are still impacting global temperatures in the mid-to-late 1800s and likely even longer—which in turn would help improve the agreement between the two.

So far, the models don’t fit the empirical record. What a surprise.

To resolve this issue, Haustein et al. recommend building larger models to ‘help improve the agreement between the two’.

That’s it. That’s all Dr. Haustein et al. have.

Epilogue: Experts and (Undeclared) Conflicts of Interest

In the piece linked at the top of this article, I referred you to a German legacy media piece from early August. It reads in part as follows (emphases mine):

Commenting on the analysis, climate expert Friederike Otto of Imperial College in London said that the global average temperature alone would not kill anyone—but extreme weather events like the current heatwave in the Mediterranean would. These are clearly linked to the ‘hottest July ever’. The consequence: ‘Every year, thousands of people die in Europe alone as a result of extreme heat.’ Despite all possible efforts, it will not get any cooler on Earth, Otto said. Therefore, people must adapt and be enabled to live with extreme conditions in summer…

You know what else I noticed while checking out the above-discussed piece by Haustein et al. that appeared on the WEF website?

Source. Look who else contributed to Dr. Haustein’s piece.

Isn’t it ‘funny’ that the same climate scientist who lends credence to Dr. Haustein’s claim that July 2023 was ‘the hottest month in 120,000 years’ is listed as a co-author of the WEF-published piece that declares the influence of nature on climate change de facto irrelevant (or doesn’t, it’s really hard to know…)?

What a small world, indeed.

Also, note that the third author, one Zeke Hausfather, Ph.D. (2019, i.e., he co-authored the above piece in his final year of graduate school), has a quite recognisable surname. Here is his profile at UC Berkeley, he apparently works as a Senior Fellow at The Breakthrough Institute (see their Wikipedia entry, too, which cites Michael Mann angrily dismissing them as ‘“extreme techno-optimists” regarding geoengineering’), and occasionally writes columns for The Guardian).

That world becomes ever smaller the more one looks around, isn’t it. Here is something else, courtesy of Willi Huber (emphases in the original):

Abroad, one can at least find the basis for Haustein’s wild theories. There is a paper by Carolyn Snyder, Stanford University, in Nature, which estimates the temperatures of the last 2 million years. It clearly states that there are no statements about individual years, but one makes assumptions in 5,000-year blocks. It relies on ‘surface temperature measurements’ of the oceans, which it would probably like to determine from calcium and magnesium deposits. ‘These are rough estimates with large margins of errors’, she said.—The ‘scientist’ sees massive potential for error in her work. Haustein and the media, who copy each other, apparently do not. In any case, the 120,000 year statement derives from Snyder’s work.

If you can bear it, click this link for a German-language video of Dr. Haustein making that claim while providing neither a source nor any kind of ambiguity found in Snyder’s paper.

That video, by the way, appeared on German state broadcaster WDR on 27 July, and in its caption, that broadcaster at least cites the European Space Agency’s Copernicus program and the UN’s World Meteorological Society as sources.

Epilogue: if of conflicts of interest I think…

To recap: Dr. Haustein appears prominently on the WEF’s website and has published one paper there that discounts (sort of) the role of nature in climatic variation.

He did so in together with Dr. Friederike Otto, which German legacy media outlet Der Tagesspiegel cited as an ostensibly ‘independent’ second opinion.

The third co-author, Dr. Zeke Hausfather, also occasionally publishes op-eds in The Guardian, and he comes out strongly in support of geoengineering solutions—which happen to be the next hype pushed by Bill Gates, Klaus Schwab, and their ilk.

The last word, though, goes to Willi Huber once more who points out yet another possible conflict of interest:

How closely Haustein is politically connected to the German Greens is currently unclear. However, it can be proven that he gave lectures for the Greens in Jena and Erfurt in 2022. Anyone who knows how the Green sect works also knows that no one who thinks even slightly differently than desired would ever be allowed to appear there.

That’s bad enough already, but it does get worse from here onwards:

Nor do the system journalists want to know anything about Haustein's possible political affiliations. ‘Science journalism’ in the year 2023 is once again about blind faith—and not at all about an objective view of an issue from several perspectives or even a check for plausibility and truthfulness through critical enquiry.

‘Political affiliations’, such as his ties to the WEF, Zeke Hausfather, Friederike Otto, to say nothing about German legacy media hyping this nonsense without voicing a single critical question.

In my book, this is as scientifically incorrect as it is—fraudulent.