Tuesday, 20 January 2009

Hans Labohm's continuous dishonesty

Hans Labohm dishonesty manipulatie & leugens
Earlier i've demonstrated that Hans Labohm has been deliberately misleading by choosing a graph that uses a timescale not suited to support his conclusion there's no correlation between CO2 and temperature.

I've also mentioned that after severe criticism on his post, Labohm was forced to write a second article, in which he posted a graph that leaves no doubt there IS a correlation.

He published this extra post on August 25, 2008.

This implies that, as he's proven to be aware of the correlation, Labohm after this date cannot deny this relation any more. Or can he ?

Exactly the same CO2/temp-correlation argument he used in the article I commented on my blog, was repeated in another article that was published in the Dutch JASON-magazine. (the article itself isn't online)

Just as on the vrijspreker website, Labohm received a lot of criticism on his writing. In an 'official' rebuttal in the magazine's next edition by Desi Van de Laar, a student in politicology, presented a graph which clearly demonstrates the correlation.

Hans Labohm has written an answer adressing her remarks which hasn't been published (yet?), but he did sent the draft to his entire mailing list. He did so on January 6, 2009. Or half a year after there has been demonstrated on the vrijspreker website that the CO2-temperature correlation he denied does appear when choosing the correct timescale. Which also was demonstrated by Van de Laar. And again, on my blog on december 26, 2008

Therefore you might assume Labohm would not be using the same debunked graph again to deny the correlation between CO2 & temperature ? Well, here's the funny part ... The answer to Van De Laar he mailed around reads (my translation) :

IPCC-climatologists concluded that man has a substancial influence on the present day warming. Yet the last decade earth has been cooling, despite a CO2 rise. This presumably leads to the conclusion that CO2 isn't such an important factor in determing earth's temperature.
A passage he finishes by presenting ... the very same graph again...
Hans Labohm is a fraud

Given the date he mailed this last text, Hans Labohm is aware that his graphic is misleading.

Hans Labohm is a total fraud.

update : Labohm keeps being dishonest by repeating this same graph over and over and over


  1. The longer term graphs show that CO2 lagged temp rise.

    This would mean that at some point temp started to decline while CO2 continued to rise, wouldn't it?

    Although on a smaller time scale isn't this what is happening with Labohm's graph?

    If this continued wouldn't temp decline further and at some point CO2 begin to decline, maybe 800yrs or possibly less due to the unprecedented nature of these things?

  2. What Labohm's graph is showing is basically noise, combined with an ENSO effect and solar variance.

    there's no reason to expect the effect in your last paragraph.

  3. This is the same misleading figure that icecap.us was touting last August. Maybe you can find which was the original purveyor of the misleading.

  4. A very nice example of a moral panic

    "A moral panic can be defined as "the intensity of feeling expressed by a large number of people about a specific group of people who appear to threaten the social order at a given time."