Real Climatologists masthead
Real Climatologists Motto

Article tab

Photo of AWI's Gerrit Lohmann in China agreeing to collaborate with the Chinese

Corrupt German Climate Science

By two insiders, Dr. Claudia Kubatzki and Dr. Duane Thresher

[Notes: There is a German language version of this article. To date there has not been any response from anyone in the extensive To list below, which is more proof of the complete corruption of German climate science.]

An email thread that shows the complete corruption of German climate science, from the funding to the administration to the ombudsmen to the scientists to the science. Emails are from oldest to newest, exposing more corruption as time goes on.

First a summary from About Us of a small part of the corruption:

Herzschuh, U., H. Birks, L. Xingqi, C. Kubatzki, G. Lohmann, 2010: "Retraction: What caused the mid-Holocene forest decline on the eastern Tibet-Qinghai Plateau?", Global Ecology and Biogeography, 20(2), 366. After at least 4 rejections and deciding the paper had no scientific value worth publishing, and quitting working for Gerrit Lohmann at the Alfred Wegener Institute (AWI) due to his abusive behavior, I was horrified to discover 3 years after I quit climate science that the paper had been published with my name on it. As determined by the publisher lawyer, during a standard sloppy peer review Lohmann fabricated my required submission signature, the required revisions on my part of the paper (of which he had no expertise, making the paper scientifically invalid), and my responses to the peer reviewers. After harassment by Lohmann, aided by the journal (particularly chief editor David Currie of the University of Ottowa), of me, my husband, my current and former bosses, and my husband's current boss, I was finally able to get the paper retracted. Fraudulently, Lohmann and John Birks (University of Bergen) continued to list this paper in their publications without the required "Retraction" in the title.

Subject: Publication fraud by Gerrit Lohmann and AWI

To:,, -- The Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), a significant German scientific funding agency. -- Johanna Wanka, Federal Minister of Education and Research. -- Thomas Rachel, Parliamentary State Secretary to the Federal Minister of Education and Research. -- Stefan Mueller, Parliamentary State Secretary to the Federal Minister of Education and Research. -- Georg Schuette, State Secretary at the Federal Ministry of Education and Research. -- The German Research Foundation (DFG), the main German scientific funding agency. -- Max Voegler, head of the DFG office in Washington DC. -- Annette Doll-Sellen, head of the DFG office in New York City. -- Ferdi Schueth, one of the Scientific Vice Presidents of the Max Planck Society (MPG) and thus one of Claussen's superiors. -- Eberhard Bodenschatz, Chairperson of the Chemistry, Physics & Technology Section of the MPG and thus one of Claussen's superiors. -- Karin Lochte, Director of the Alfred Wegener Institute (AWI). Complicit in Lohmann's fraud. -- Heinrich Miller, then AWI Deputy Director. Complicit in Lohmann's fraud. -- Christoph Ruholl, former head of the AWI legal department. As Sue Joshua indicated, he is incompetent and/or complicit in Lohmann's fraud. Now head of AWI Human Resources. -- Peter Lemke, then head of the Department of Climate Sciences at AWI. Complicit in Lohmann's fraud. -- Torsten Kanzow, head of the Department of Climate Sciences at AWI, including Lohmann's AWI Bremerhaven group. -- Ralf Tiedemann, head of the Department of Geosciences at AWI, including Herzschuh's AWI Potsdam group. -- Herzschuh's direct boss, Guido Grosse, head of the Periglacial Research Section at AWI. -- Hans-Wolfgang Hubberten, then head of the Periglacial Research Section at AWI. -- Faculty of Geosciences at the University of Bremen, near AWI Bremerhaven. -- Michael Schulz, scientist in Geosciences at the University of Bremen, head of MARUM. -- Ombudsman for science in Germany (created by the DFG). -- Kirsten Huettemann, scientific integrity officer at the DFG. -- Christine Spitzer, scientific integrity officer at the DFG. -- Andreas Mackensen, ombudsman at AWI, supposed to enforce DFG "Rules of Good Scientific Practice". -- Maarten Boersma, ombudsman at AWI, supposed to enforce DFG "Rules of Good Scientific Practice". -- Reinhard Fischer, ombudsman for all natural sciences at the University of Bremen, near AWI Bremerhaven. -- Listed email address of Rolf Drechsler, ombudsman for all natural sciences at the University of Bremen, near AWI Bremerhaven. Email address does not seem to work. Typical. -- Kerstin Schill, ombudsman at the Center for Marine Environmental Sciences (MARUM), University of Bremen. -- Gerrit Lohmann, corrupt and incompetent scientist at AWI. (now defunct) -- Lohmann's wife Anne Heilemann. Tellingly, a psychotherapist. -- Ulrike Herzschuh, first author of the retracted paper and cowardly scientist at AWI. Complicit in Lohmann's fraud and threatening Kubatzki. (defunct, contacted now at -- Herzschuh's husband Martin Brendebach, a tormented failed academic turned high school teacher. He sent a bizarre desperate email to Kubatzki demanding a face-to-face meeting that combined with a desperate Herzschuh email suggesting coming to Alaska was easily seen as a physical threat, particularly to Kubatzki, the mother then of a 6-month-old baby. -- John Birks of the University of Bergen (Norway), second author of the retracted paper. Like Lohmann he continued to fraudulently cite the retracted paper as unretracted. A report of this misconduct was sent to scientists and officials at Bergen by Dr. Duane Thresher. Birks never responded. -- Richard Telford, a scientist in Birks's group at Bergen. Immediately upon receipt of Dr. Duane Thresher's report of Birks's misconduct he tried to contact Thresher's boss and have him silenced and punished and then libeled him. -- Cathy Jenks, a web tech in Birk's group at Bergen with only a BS degree. Amazingly, upon receipt of Dr. Duane Thresher's report of Birks's misconduct she stated that because THEY decided the science in the paper was good and they continued to oppose the retraction, even after the publisher lawyers told them not even COPE was going to change their minds, that it was fine for them to list it without any mention of its retraction!,,,,,,,, -- Various other scientists and officials at the University of Bergen who were contacted but did nothing. -- David Currie, then chief editor of the journal of last resort, Global Ecology and Biogeography. Complicit in allowing Lohmann to threaten Kubatzki and Thresher. (now defunct and changed to -- Official email address of Martin Claussen, a leading German climate scientist and Kubatzki's boss and mentor of 10 years. Since 2009 part of the Scientific Advisory Board of AWI (head as of 2017). Complicit in Lohmann's fraud and threatening Kubatzki. -- Private email address of Martin Claussen, for emails he doesn't want his secretary to read, like the threatening ones he sent to Kubatzki to try to stop the retraction. -- Claussen's wife Dorothea. Amazingly for the wife of a leading scientist, she does homeopathy, an alternative medicine pseudoscience that is dangerous, particularly since she specializes in treating children. -- Claussen's secretary Sylvia Houston, who he tries to hide embarassing emails from. -- Jelle Bijma, the AWI Bremerhaven scientist Dr. Duane Thresher came to work with but was blocked from doing so by Lohmann. Bijma knew of Lohmann's abuse of Thresher but did nothing. -- Peter Koehler, a scientist and another Lohmann victim at AWI. -- Klaus Grosfeld, a scientist in Lohmann's group at AWI Bremerhaven and a long-suffering victim of Lohmann's. -- Norel Rimbu, a scientist in Lohmann's group at AWI Bremerhaven and a long-suffering victim of Lohmann's. -- Thomas Laepple, a PhD student then postdoc in Lohmann's AWI Bremerhaven group. Smart so heavily relied upon by Lohmann to get publications. -- Luisa Cristini, a PhD student then postdoc now project manager in Lohmann's AWI Bremerhaven group. Like other victims of Lohmann's, lured by Lohmann to do something that interested her but was then coerced by Lohmann into doing what he needed, which was well beyond her qualifications (his too of course).,, -- Die Zeit, a liberal newspaper. -- Sueddeutsche Zeitung, a liberal newspaper. -- Die Welt, a centrist newspaper., -- Focus, a centrist magazine. (online email) -- Der Spiegel, a liberal magazine. (online email) -- Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, a centrist newspaper. (online email), -- Bildzeitung, a tabloid.

Mentioned: (now defunct) -- Sue Joshua, lawyer for Wiley-Blackwell, publisher of the journal of last resort, Global Ecology and Biogeography (GEB), which the retracted paper was in. Cut through all the nonsense and stated the obvious: Lohmann had committed fraud., (both now defunct) -- Debbie Wright, then publishing agent at Wiley-Blackwell. Complicit in allowing Lohmann to threaten Kubatzki and Thresher. (now defunct) -- Rudolf Hornke, AWI administrator dealing with personnel questions. Complicit in letting Lohmann force Kubatzki out of climate science. (now defunct) -- Heike Wolke, then AWI Administrative Director. Complicit in Lohmann's fraud. -- Ivan Oransky, one of the founders of Retraction Watch, the only place you'll ever hear what little comes out about corruption in science. -- Alison McCook, a reporter for Retraction Watch.

Date: January 25, 2017

From: Dr. Claudia Kubatzki

[Originally in German]

Dear Sir or Madam (see To: list of this email):

I noticed recently that Prof. Gerrit Lohmann of the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research (AWI) continues, even after being caught once, to fraudulently present his retracted paper

(All concerned parties were informed so all webpages may change soon.)
["Retraction: What caused the mid-Holocene forest decline on the eastern Tibet-Qinghai Plateau?" Webpage as of 7 Feb 2017 is here.]

as a valid unretracted paper. For just one example see attached from today from
[Yet again, upon being caught in this fraud Lohmann immediately deleted this paper so the link is broken.]

If Lohmann commits this fraud publically he almost certainly does so on grant applications. This should be checked.

While I was at it I finally decided to clear this matter up with Retraction Watch
[Webpage as of 7 Feb 2017 is here.]

My Retraction Watch email thread is here.

In looking up all the email addresses I noticed a lot of personnel have changed over the last few years. Perhaps now you would be interested in Lohmann's original fraud that led to the retraction of the article. Here is the lawyer email thread that includes Lohmann and Sue Joshua, the publisher lawyer and the one who determined Lohmann had committed fraud ("fabricated").

I will be publicizing this even more than I already have at

so you might want to at least pretend to do something about it this time.

Dr. Claudia Kubatzki

Date: January 26, 2017

From: Gerrit Lohmann

[Originally in German]

Hello Claudia,

I am looking into the matter of how the old version of the article could get onto the webpage. It wasn't me.

When I have access again, I would replace this or delete it entirely. I hope that will bring the matter to a close.

Many greetings


Date: January 26, 2017

From: Dr. Claudia Kubatzki

[Originally in German]


I see that you continue to lie. You and numerous others there were warned in April 2013 about your fraudulently listing your retracted paper as a valid one in the AWI publications server and on your own webpage. You corrected those but you seem to have started again.

You have to agree before your articles get published on And was not the only place you again committed this fraud. You did the same on; see attached [also from yesterday]. Another accident? Nonsense.

While the DFG is checking whether you committed this fraud in your publications list included in your grant proposals they should also check whether the collaborators you listed in these actually agreed to collaborate with you (e.g. Peter Koehler, Gavin Schmidt). If you would commit such a public fraud you would certainly do so in less public matters.

This issue will not just go away. It will be expanded upon at

You will find it much harder this time to threaten me and my husband by libeling us with our bosses. We are more experienced now with the legal system and will use it to its full extent to protect ourselves.

Dr. Claudia Kubatzki

Date: January 29, 2017

From: Dr. Claudia Kubatzki

[Originally in German]

Regarding Lohmann threatening my husband, the American Dr. Duane Thresher, and me that I mentioned in my last email.

Here is the email my husband had to send to my boss at the University of Alaska, Lee Taylor, and his boss at the University of Alaska, Greg Newby, explaining the libelous extorting emails Lohmann sent in his attempt to stop the retraction, which was due to his fraud in the first place. [Here are the Lohmann_22Dec10email.pdf and Lohmann_25Nov10email.pdf mentioned in the email.]

A quick summary in German since the email is in English.

I quit my permanent position at AWI due to Lohmann's unethical behavior towards me and my future husband. I complained but AWI did nothing (although they listed one they did not even have an ombudsman). My future husband complained about other Lohmann scientific misconduct but was ignored.

I applied for and got a position with Ulrike Herzschuh at AWI but Lohmann threatened her. She was a coward and withdrew the offer right before signing the contract.

As Lohmann intended, it was clear I and my future husband were not going to get jobs in German climate science ever again so I quit climate science and emigrated to the US, where I married my husband, applied for Permanent Residency, started a PhD in Biological Sciences, and had my first child.

Lohmann assumed that since he had gotten away with so much he could just steal my scientific identity and use it to further his own career (he continues to do so). When I refused to allow this by demanding a retraction he attacked me by sending libelous emails to my boss Lee Taylor and ultimately my husband's boss, Greg Newby.

My husband was working for the Arctic Region Supercomputing Center, at the time a US Department of Defense facility. My husband was required by law to report this extortion by a foreign official, particularly since his younger brother is an agent for the US Department of Homeland Security. (Keep in mind too that at the time I was applying for US Permanent Residency.) Hence, the email subject line "Extortion by corrupt foreign professor".

Somewhere now in the US government Lohmann is listed as a possible foreign threat. Under the previous US President nothing was done about this. As you know, President Trump is less tolerant of such abuses by foreign governments (by the way, Americans still remember very well that the 9/11 attacks were aided by a Muslim terrorist cell in Hamburg).

At the bottom of is a link

to a Breitbart News article about my husband, Dr. Duane Thresher. Steve Bannon used to be the CEO of Breitbart News before he became President Trump's chief advisor. Neither give climate science (or Germany) much credence. My husband and I are talking to a Breitbart News editor about doing a story about all this and these emails are being sent to him. Lohmann, AWI and the DFG are about to become the poster children for corrupt climate science.

Regarding using the legal system that I mentioned in my last email.

As my husband was threatened when he was in Germany, we encourage you to sue us. My husband is a US Citizen and I am a US Permanent Resident. As defendants, you will have to sue us in the US and we will have the opportunity, at your expense, to countersue. In the US, people have been awarded millions of dollars for being harmed far less than you have harmed us. It may even lead to criminal charges against Lohmann.

My husband can outline the procedure for you since he has wanted to sue you for so long now. I would suggest not getting advice from AWI lawyer Ruholl. As the publisher lawyer, Sue Joshua, pointed out he knows nothing about international law. Anyway, I see now he is working in AWI human resources, busy NOT protecting AWI employees I assume.

Finally, why would you go to all this trouble to protect Lohmann? He is a corrupt and incompetent scientist and despised by all of his colleagues. You pretend to help young women scientists but then you let Lohmann harass them and destroy their careers.

Dr. Claudia Kubatzki

Date: January 30, 2017

From: Dr. Claudia Kubatzki

[Originally in German]

In my last email, I mentioned that my husband, Dr. Duane Thresher, had earlier tried to report to AWI scientific misconduct by Gerrit Lohmann but was ignored. The two emails here prove that.

Since the emails are in English I will provide background and a summary in German.

Lohmann knows nothing about climate models and desperately needed workers who did. Qualified climate modelers like my husband and I are rare. Lohmann took to telling modelers they could come and work on their own ideas and when they got there and all settled he would demand they run climate models for him. I went to work for Lohmann on vegetation modeling but was forced into running climate models for his ideas. My husband went to work for Lohmann on ocean climate proxy models but Lohmann tried to force him into running climate models for his ideas.

My husband is an American and does not accept such outrageous abuse. It got so bad at one point that Lohmann was demanding that my husband, and only my husband, sign in and out of the building to discourage him from going to another building to work with Jelle Bijma on ocean climate proxy models. Bijma can confirm this (if out of fear he refuses to, we have notes to prove it).

Lohmann promised my husband a 3-year position after a few months as a guest scientist but when my husband would not give in Lohmann fired him, knowing that without a job his German visa would become invalid and he would have to leave the country and not be a problem.

Much to Lohmann's surprise, we were able to secure another visa for my husband. However, Lohmann then proceeded to harass both of us and prevent us from getting other jobs in German climate science.

At that point my husband wrote the [mentioned] email here reporting scientific misconduct by Lohmann to AWI's Peter Lemke, Karin Lochte, and Heinrich Miller. My husband requested Lohmann's proposals and reports so he could prove this scientific misconduct. Miller's answer: prove the misconduct first and even if you can it's not going to change anything.

More corrupt German climate science.

We have a large amount of proof of our claims and will be releasing it, particularly to the media, in pieces at our convenience. It will also appear at

Dr. Claudia Kubatzki

Date: January 31, 2017

From: Dr. Claudia Kubatzki

[Originally in German]

In my January 26, 2017 email above, I mentioned a warning in April 2013 about Gerrit Lohmann and AWI already for years fraudulently presenting Lohmann's retracted paper as a valid one. Here are three emails proving that. They were sent by my husband, Dr. Duane Thresher, to AWI, specifically Karin Lochte, Peter Lemke, Ralf Tiedemann, Hans-Wolfgang Hubberten and Heike Wolke. [Here are the attachments to the emails, ePIC_CitationFraud_18Apr2013.pdf, PublicationsGerritLohmann_18Apr2013.pdf, and GoogleCache_PublicationsGerritLohmann_12Apr2013.pdf.]

As shown by the webpage prints in the emails, AWI's publication server and Lohmann's own webpage linked to by AWI showed Lohmann's retracted paper with no indication at all that it was retracted.

AWI never responded directly but the entries in the publication lists were furtively changed to show some small indication of retraction.

The demand in the emails that Lohmann's publication list be reviewed for citation fraud in all project proposals he submitted to funding agencies was yet again ignored.

As defined by the DFG itself, Lohmann and AWI have committed very serious scientific misconduct and show an obvious lack of scientific integrity. They should be banned from getting any federal or state funding. We will see if the DFG's talk of scientific integrity is just talk or if they have any scientific integrity of their own. If not, politicians and taxpayers may have a different view.

Or perhaps everyone thinks it is fine for a scientist to steal another's scientific identity to give themselves some credibility. Or maybe it's OK to do this just to women scientists. In any case, if it's OK, it's a real opportunity for other corrupt scientists.

Dr. Claudia Kubatzki

Date: February 1, 2017

From: Dr. Claudia Kubatzki

[Originally in German]

Regarding my position with Ulrike Herzschuh that Gerrit Lohmann sabotaged and that I mentioned in my January 29, 2017 email above.

I quit Lohmann's group at AWI Bremerhaven in July 2007 due to his abusive behavior, but he still demanded I spend many unpaid hours afterwards to train my successors and write reports for him, which I did well into September. Out of fear of retaliation I tried to fulfill his demands.

Since I had quit my permanent position, not been fired, I had an exit interview with AWI's Rudolf Hornke about my reasons, which were Lohmann's abusive behavior. Hornke did nothing. I was penalized for quitting by the Unemployment Office: no unemployment money for 3 months. Even after that I was eligible for support only if I proved I was seriously trying to get a job, which should have been easy for someone with my qualifications but Lohmann prevented it (see ahead).

When people at AWI found out I was quitting due to Lohmann's abusive behavior many came to me in private and told me their own horror stories about Lohmann. When I said they should speak up about Lohmann they all said no out of fear of losing their jobs. (Except for Lohmann's many secretaries over the years, they just quit.)

While I was working for Lohmann at AWI in 2006, Herzschuh, Steffen Mischke (FU Berlin), and myself had applied for funding for a project within the DFG Schwerpunktprogramm Interdynamik that funded 2 BAT IIa/2 positions: one climate proxy (pollen) position with Herzschuh at AWI Potsdam and one vegetation/climate modeling position with me. Lohmann knew about the project but didn't show any interest or take any part in it whatsoever.

The project got funded in August 2007, a month after I quit. My quitting should have stopped the project so Herzschuh and I discussed how the two positions might be saved. These discussions also involved Michael Schulz (University of Bremen) as the leader of the SPP Interdynamik and Martin Claussen (University of Hamburg and Max Planck Institute for Meteorology), my former boss of 10 years. To make sure we could get away with not just stopping the project, Claussen allegedly checked with the DFG, as did I with Annett Uhmann and Ute Bennerscheid at DFG. Surprisingly, the DFG said it was OK.

We decided to move the grad student position in vegetation/climate modeling to Claussen's group at MPI-M Hamburg, since after me quitting there was no vegetation/climate modeling expertise left in Lohmann's group at AWI Bremerhaven.

After I quit my job with Lohmann, I decided to quit modeling and go into pollen analysis, a climate proxy. After talking with Herzschuh and Claussen, and after they checked with DFG and AWI Potsdam officials, Herzschuh and I decided, even though it was a real step down, that I would take the project climate proxy (pollen) position and she asked me to submit a formal job application to AWI Potsdam, which I did.

Herzschuh then wrote me (see 8 Oct 2007 email here) that my application would be presented to the AWI staff council on 30 Oct 2007 and that she and her colleagues expected no further questions from them. She also wrote "I am looking forward to you coming here" and she started keeping me updated about her group, including who I would be sharing an office with. Then my husband and I started looking for a place to live in Potsdam.

While I was applying, Lohmann discovered that I was planning to give the vegetation/climate modeling position to Claussen instead of him. Lohmann became angry with me. He did not care that he could not provide proper support for a grad student in that position. He demanded, having had no part in its writing, to be listed as co-author on the project, which Claussen agreed to for some reason.

Obviously only to punish me, Lohmann then started to harass Herzschuh about hiring me for the climate proxy (pollen) position. He threatened to object to hiring me at the AWI staff council meeting and to harm Herzschuh's career, particularly via her upcoming job evaluation. He also made slanderous statements about me to other people, including Claussen and Hornke. I eventually had to contact Hornke about this. Again, Hornke did nothing. See my attached 28 Oct 2007 email.

At this point Herzschuh was terrified. Instead of speaking out against this like a good scientist should she caved in to Lohmann's threats. (I wonder whether her scientific results could be similarly influenced.) Because of Lohmann's threats, she changed her mind and refused to hire me. In her attached 12 Nov 2007 email she pretends, through a long pro/con list, that her decision is a reasoned one but the only thing on the list that changed since she first agreed to hire me was the addition of Lohmann's threats.

This horrendous experience made it clear to me that Lohmann would prevent me and my husband from ever getting a job in climate science in Germany again. So I quit climate science, and Germany, and went to America, specifically Alaska.

However, Lohmann's scheming with Claussen played out again in America when I protested having my scientific identity stolen and demanded a retraction of the mentioned paper, which I only accidentally discovered had been submitted and published in the journal of last resort, Global Ecology and Biogeography. It had already been rejected at least 4 times and I had long since admitted it had no scientific value to make it worth publishing.

Besides libeling me with my new boss, Lee Taylor of the Institute of Arctic Biology at the University of Alaska, and libeling my husband with his new boss, Greg Newby of the Arctic Region Supercomputing Center, a US Department of Defense facility at the time, Lohmann, via Herzschuh, enlisted Claussen to attack me (see 4 emails here from September and October 2010).

Claussen admitted what Lohmann/Herzschuh had done was scientific misconduct but demanded I overlook it and let them get away with it. At that point I had lost all respect for Claussen and refused and got the paper retracted.

Dr. Claudia Kubatzki

Date: February 5, 2017

From: Dr. Claudia Kubatzki

[Originally in German]

Regarding Gerrit Lohmann's lying on his proposals, including fabrication of collaborators like Koehler and Schmidt that I mentioned in my January 26, 2017 email above.

Lohmann is an incompetent scientist, particularly in his nearly total inability to read, write and speak English, the required language of science. This makes it extremely difficult for him to be first author on papers (those he is first author on are probably from coercing coauthors or ghostwriters; see ahead).

He thus has to make up for this almost career-ending shortcoming by getting listed as coauthor on as many papers and proposals as he can, by whatever means necessary. Unfortunately for him for this goal, he has little scientific credibility and he is personally repugnant, starting with his lack of personal hygiene and extending to his extremely unpleasant personality.

The one advantage he does have is that he is corrupt and has sniffed out a disreputable place, AWI, that not only looks the other way but actively aids in protecting him. And the scientific community is notoriously bad at detecting, admitting, and doing anything about scientific corruption, especially when it is as extreme as Lohmann's.

As I have described, Lohmann has learned that extortion is a very effective way to get scientists to do what he wants. But he has also learned another useful crime: steal the credibility of other scientists without them knowing or having the will to fight it.

I was thus a golden opportunity, which is probably why Lohmann refuses to stop trying to steal my scientific identity to this day, as I have proved. He extorted me out of climate science and Germany and thought he would be left there with my scientific identity and credibility. For more proof of this, note (Dec 2010 lawyer email thread here) what his main contention was while fighting the retraction: that I was not me!

However, I was not his only victim.

My husband, Dr. Duane Thresher, first spent three months at AWI Bremerhaven in late 2005. No specific projects were done as it was more of an introductory visit for the longer later stay. My husband had come from Columbia University and NASA GISS, the most famous climate institute in America, since it was led by James Hansen and the rising star Gavin Schmidt was there, who my husband had worked closely with.

Out of the blue, Lohmann asked my husband if he thought Schmidt would like to collaborate with Lohmann on a project. My husband said maybe but Lohmann would obviously have to ask Schmidt himself. (Actually, my husband thought it very unlikely Schmidt would want to collaborate with someone as incompetent as Lohmann.) Lohmann did not even contact Schmidt, never mind actually collaborate with him.

Later we discovered that at the time Lohmann was working on project proposals for the DFG Research Unit "Understanding Cenozoic Climate Cooling" and for the DFG Schwerpunktprogramm Interdynamik and one of its projects "Seasonality and interannual to centennial climate variability in the Caribbean during the last interglacial" (see below for more about them). In both (pdf page 13 of the first attached, uccc06-ant-final_part.pdf, and pdf page 4 of the second attached, AntragCaribclim_part.pdf), he lists as a collaborator

"Dr. Gavin Schmidt, Columbia University New York, USA, paleoclimate modelling, proxy data"

My husband was not listed on either proposal and was Lohmann's only connection to Schmidt. And although both of these projects were funded and went ahead, Lohmann has no papers with Schmidt as a coauthor or even where he is acknowledged. Schmidt was fraudulently listed solely to steal credibility for Lohmann's proposals. (If anyone says Lohmann did contact and collaborate with Schmidt we would demand written dated proof. Lohmann probably tried to fix this when it was made public last week.) All of Lohmann's later proposals should be checked for this fraud.

It's easy to use a distant foreign scientist as a fake collaborator since the DFG carelessly doesn't check but Lohmann is so corrupt he was willing to use one of his own colleagues at AWI.

While I was working for Lohmann, I was co-applicant of a proposal for a DFG Research Unit "Understanding Cenozoic Climate Cooling"; see again attached uccc06-ant-final_part.pdf, from March 2006 and the last submitted proposal in which I should have been a co-applicant. The Research Unit was made up of 6 interlinked work projects (WP1-6). Lohmann was the primary applicant and I was co-applicant in WP5 and he was co-applicant in WP6.

Lohmann was also the central coordinator of the entire Research Unit so he was heavily involved in all the other projects in the proposal, particularly WP4 since the applicants for that, Torsten Bickert and Martin Butzin, were from the nearby University of Bremen and the subject was one that Lohmann supposedly had at least some experience in. Lohmann was even listed as a member of the WP4 team.

Within WP4, funds were requested for a BAT IIa position and Peter Koehler (at AWI Bremerhaven then) was explicitly listed as the candidate for that position, with a description of why he was ideal for it. Oddly, he was also listed as a cooperation partner for the same project and for the other two that Lohmann was applicant for (WP5, WP6).

In Fall 2006 we were preparing for a proposal evaluation meeting with the reviewers. During one of the preparation meetings, I discovered to my horror that Koehler had not been told that he had been used to apply for a position within the Research Group. I objected to Lohmann and Butzin that this was seriously wrong. They simply laughed. They said they had no plans to ever tell Koehler and thought it was very funny that they would be around him, like in the cafeteria, and like a fool he would have no idea he was being used.

Koehler does not seem to have any papers from this project. If anyone says Koehler knew of and was hired on this position we would demand written dated proof. Lohmann probably tried to fix this when it was made public last week.

As yet more serious misconduct on this proposal, when we later got the evaluation results, the reviewers demanded substantial changes to the proposal. I told Lohmann in February 2007 that I would quit my permanent position in July 2007. Probably because it would have affected this proposal, Lohmann demanded I wait until May 2007 to make my quitting official. I see on the DFG webpages that the proposal got funded after I quit AWI. I should not be listed in the proposal at all, or any other proposal since that time.

Similarly, in October 2006 I was part of another proposal with Lohmann, the project "Seasonality and interannual to centennial climate variability in the Caribbean during the last interglacial" (see again attached AntragCaribclim_part.pdf) within the DFG Schwerpunktprogramm Interdynamik that I mentioned in my last email. Again, the proposal got funded after I quit AWI. On 20 December 2007, I sent a letter to Annett Uhmann at the DFG saying I was no longer part of the project since I quit AWI, and that my part of the project would have to be done by someone else with my equivalent or better expertise. I see on the DFG webpages that the project does not list me as applicant but it doesn't say who the equivalent expert is who replaced me.

Also while I was working for Lohmann there was at least one instance when Lohmann knowingly lied about the scientific content in a proposal. I discovered this and objected to Lohmann (and Butzin) but he told me to shut up. It would be difficult to explain the scientific content here to a non-expert but I would be willing to try to explain it to a disinterested expert. The point here is that not only does Lohmann lie about the people in his proposals but also the scientific content and so I doubt the veracity of any paper on which Lohmann is coauthor. They should all be retracted or at least a note about Lohmann's corruption should be attached.

Again, we strongly encourage Lohmann and AWI to sue us in an American court, for whatever nonsensical reason they can come up with. If not, we will sue in Germany. My husband has wanted to sue Lohmann and AWI since he was first abused by them and this multiplies every time they commit yet more misconduct. At first I was the only thing stopping my husband from sueing but I have gotten over that and am now equally enthusiastic.

My husband is also in the process of trying to stop the cooperation between the US National Science Foundation (NSF) and the DFG, through contact with the NSF and publicity. These cooperations are usually just the US paying for most of everything, like NATO, and Americans do not like being abused, like my husband was, by countries they are supporting. And they will be outraged to find out that well-known American scientists are being fraudulently listed as collaborators on German science proposals in order to steal their credibility.

Dr. Claudia Kubatzki

Date: February 13, 2017

From: Dr. Claudia Kubatzki

[Originally in German]

To date the only response I have received to these emails is one from Lohmann, where like a small bad child he says of his obvious most-recent fraud, "It wasn't me". I thank Lohmann for that since it so clearly shows how corrupt he is. (I am disappointed, but impressed, that you got Lohmann to shut up after that, as you so obviously have, because he always digs himself in deeper when he speaks.)

I would like to thank the rest of you for NOT responding. My emails have meant to show how corrupt ALL of German climate science is and part of that corruption is your ignoring, and actively hiding, corruption. Your lack of response proves that.

Who am I "showing"? The world.

My American husband, Dr. Duane Thresher, and I took all these emails and their attached supporting material and made them easily accessible at
[Now at]

We also created an English version of the webpage:
[Now at]

We will be sending more such emails -- we know of a lot more corruption -- and adding them to the webpages. (Thus we will no longer include earlier emails in new emails.)

Plus, Retraction Watch is doing a story on this (they want to be the first because they expect other news sources to do stories). Attached is my latest email thread with them. They said they would be contacting you.

Dr. Claudia Kubatzki

Date: February 15, 2017

From: Dr. Duane Thresher

When Gerrit Lohmann was threatening my wife, Dr. Claudia Kubatzki, in order to cover up his publication fraud, he libelously contacted, in the U.S., my wife's new boss (in a different field) and MY colleagues to get to MY new boss. So that they could threaten my wife, he also caused Ulrike Herzschuh to contact my wife's former boss, Martin Claussen, and to have her husband contact my wife.

I am reciprocating.

Gerrit Lohmann is corrupt, as is anyone who helps him. For the full story see:
[Now at]

[Now at]

Dr. Duane Thresher

Date: July 29, 2017

From: Dr. Duane Thresher

Subject: Still here: victims of corrupt German climate science

[Originally in German]

Dear members and supporters of corrupt German climate science:

I am Dr. Duane Thresher, the husband of Dr. Claudia Kubatzki. As I am sure you recall we were victims of Gerrit Lohmann, AWI and the rest of corrupt German climate science and went very public with this, by publishing everything on

Recently, due to's success we updated the website. This broke the links that you have become so familiar with. Rest assured though that we are still here and prosecuting this matter. Your silence on the matter will not make it go away. The new links are:

In updating these webpages I reread the January 29, 2017 email about my connection to President Trump and my prediction of how he would regard German climate science. As I am sure you know, despite Angie Merkel's silly threats, President Trump pulled out of the Paris Climate Agreement. I have reason to believe I had some influence in this; see

I will use any influence I have against you.

Dr. Duane Thresher
PhD (a real American one), Earth & Environmental Sciences, Columbia University and NASA

Date: August 7, 2017

From: Dr. Duane Thresher

Subject: Birks, U Bergen as corrupt as Lohmann, AWI

For those new to this email thread see

This email will appear there as well.

Every time AWI's Gerrit Lohmann is caught fraudulently citing his retracted paper as valid he ludicrously pretends it was an accident. However, another author on the retracted paper who commits this same fraud, John Birks, is blatant about simply choosing to violate copyright law and scientific ethics. Birks is from the University of Bergen, Norway but even though he has shown himself to be corrupt many at AWI still choose to work closely with him, particularly Herzschuh, so he is part of corrupt German climate science.

Attached are 5 publication lists Birks was on from the University of Bergen servers on 24 April 2013, the day I notified Bergen of John Birks' misconduct.


They all show the retracted article fraudulently listed as unretracted; just search for Kubatzki on each of these lists.

In April 2013 I informed Birks's group and administrators at Bergen of Birks's fraud. Their response was typically corrupt. The email thread, JohnBirksMisconductEmailThread.pdf, is attached.

Birks never responded. The first response was from Richard Telford, a scientist in Birks's group. Without checking, he immediately declared my information a lie and tried to find and libelously contact my boss, the usual response to exposing corruption in science. When he couldn't since I had quit climate science out of disgust and started my own business he resorted to libeling me by calling me drunk. It's easy to be corrupt like Birks when you have minions like Telford and administrators who ignore corruption.

The next, last and closest thing to an official response was from Cathy Jenks, a web tech at Bergen with only a BS degree. Amazingly, she stated that because THEY decided the science in the paper was good and they continued to oppose the retraction -- even after the publisher lawyers told them not even COPE was going to change their minds -- that it was fine for them to list it without any mention of its retraction!

Also attached is PublicationListsScrubbingEmail.pdf, which is a draft of an email I wrote on April 28, 2013 but never sent (the recipients would just have ignored such proof). In it I document how just a few days later Bergen has unethically scrubbed any mention of the retracted article.

Birks was unethical about the paper from the start. He had to use his influence to get the paper published in the first place since it was such a weak paper. Birks was the first listed in the submission letter signature, even though Herzschuh was first author, because Birks carried more weight (was friends with the editor) than Herzschuh. Still the reviewers called for a major revision of the paper before publication. (And yet, Lohmann, Herzschuh and Claussen repeatedly claimed that it was the same manuscript that my wife, Dr. Claudia Kubatzki, had previously agreed to for submission in previous unsuccessful attempts with other journals.)

And who did the revisions involving Dr. Kubatzki's work in the paper and then responded to the reviewers about it pretending to be her? Almost certainly Gerrit Lohmann since he was the only supposed climate modeler actually left on the paper. The revisions involving my wife's work were fabricated by Lohmann and thus scientifically invalid since she is the only author that knew about that material (specifically a climate model which Lohmann had never worked with). Lohmann hired Dr. Kubatzki exactly because he has no expertise in her area, climate modeling. (From my experience with Lohmann he has no real expertise in any area of climate science. My understanding was that AWI was looking for a climate modeler at the time -- we are quite rare -- and Lohmann pretended to be one to get his job at AWI.)

Dr. Duane Thresher
PhD (a real American one), Earth & Environmental Sciences, Columbia University and NASA