Bit of a weird one this, and I’m not sure it is all pieced together. I saw this via KZ, and of course was interested in what science R had got wrong, but KZ’s Werner Krauss isn’t interested in the science (explicitly so, see the comments). And it points me to RP Jr, whom he says “sums it up perfectly”, but experience suggests that is unlikely. And indeed, RP just uses it as an excuse to bash R and ride his favourite hobby-horses. Tellingly he too has no interest in the science. You’ll notice that he is very deliberately vague about what actually happened, which is a sure sign that he doesn’t want you to know.
It appears to start with an article (“AFRICA GATE The failure of climate scientists”) by Irene Meichsner (here I’m relying in part on an earlier KZ post, which I ignored at the time because it was in Foreign and therefore clearly not important. Google tells me it says): “The affair began with an article in the Frankfurter Rundschau, the web archive of the FR with the regret of the paper was removed. The article is also published by the Cologne Stadt Anzeiger , where the article is to continue to find. Apparently the article in the FR was reduced by the editors without this had been agreed with Ms. Meichsner.” So the original article has been removed by the FR; just possibly, because it was junk (WC, no relation of whom more anon, thinks so). But never mind, we can still read the KSA version and it looks like just another of the many dumb articles that appeared after the 2035/2350 Himalayan glaciers stuff, when every fool thought that sticking “-gate” on a story related to climate change made it true.
I know nothing of African drought. Wolfgang Cramer is sympathetic to Rahmstorf’s view (aha, but he too is German, it is all a conspiracy. But wait, IM is also German… aha, but WC is at PIK like R…) and says stuff like The first claim, but that the numbers were wrong about the increasing aridity… the claim itself is not new and has been refuted… [the claim] was the subject of a sensational newspaper article dated February 2010 in the Cologne Stadt Anzeiger and the Frankfurter Rundschau, which was withdrawn from the latter in April 2010 and corrected for good reason (caution: these words come from google translate. I’m not going to repeat that caution again). You can read more there, or probably find similar elsewhere (Deltoid blames in all on Leake, and who knows?). So much for the science.
The court judgement (which is the bit RP is so excited by, though you’ll notice he tells you nothing about it) appears to be that R must
to refrain from it (…) to create the impression that a) the applicant has written off by the blogger Richard North, by journalist Jonathan Leake;
and I think this, translated, means that IM had just copied junk from North and Leake. Which she probably had, given the way this stuff flows around the denialosphere. And also:
b) the applicant was the defendant by the editors of the Frankfurter Rundschau Please let Naaman should the applicant’s name from the blog post of the defendant, FR pulls product back to the IPCC remove ‘and name the Frankfurter Rundschau.
And I haven’t got a f*ck*ng clue what that is supposed to mean. Maybe someone who can read the original could help me?
There is a bit more:
Moreover, the defendant must pay the applicant â¬ 511.58 plus interest and two-thirds the costs of the litigation over it… an action point of Mrs. Meichsner, namely the claim that it had “not read 4th Assessment Report of the IPCC,” the was rated as acceptable speech, so the costs are two-thirds to Mr. Rahmstorf and one third to the applicant.
and I think that last bit means that R saying IM had never read the IPCC report she was claiming to talk about was probably true. Either way, the court had nothing to sat about science.
Err, so there you go. Not perfectly clear, but R appears to be correct on the science, and the other stuff looks like trivia (disclaimer: R is at RC where I used to be).
* PIK responds
* Eli has some nice quotes from the EPA, who were challenged on their use of the IPCC report and vigourously rebutted those challenges.
* Von Storch invites you to discuss Extended peer review: Assumptions in Arnell’s article