Schellnhuber: Now Scepticism Is Anti-Science!

Schellnhuber

Things have really gotten desperate for the CAGWists also here in Germany. That’s what a little Climategate and Germany’s coldest winter in 46 years can do to a junk-science theory.  

Dirk Maxeiner brings up a piece appearing in the German online Frankfurter Rundschau titled: Campaign of Lies McCarthy Style Click here!  

The piece describes how more than 250 scientists, among them 11 Nobel Prize recipients, have expressed their outrage in a letter published in Science claiming they’ve been the targets of McCarthy-like attacks. The Frankfurter Rundschau says the attacks are coming from “Konservative Think-Tanks” and “Republikaner”, among them the Heartland Institute, and James Inhofe, all designed to “torpedo the urgently needed climate protection measures”, and blah blah blah.  

The tone of the piece of course is that sceptics are bad and the warmists are good. The piece also heavily bemoans the rapidly eroding public concerns of AGW as an issue, and asks: Who’s behind all that irresponsible scepticism?

Prof Hans Joachim Scellnhuber, an IPCC lead author, explains it for them. Here’s the text in German, then followed by the translation in English:   

Der Potsdamer Klimaforscher Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber, Mitunterzeichner des Science-Briefs, hält den Einfluss der Skeptiker in Deutschland für geringer als in den USA. Es handele sich dabei um sehr unterschiedliche Gruppen, sagte der Präsident des Instituts für Klimafolgen-Forschung der FR. Die meisten operierten ‘aus der sicheren Anonymität des Internets heraus. Sie versuchen erst gar nicht, bei einer sachlichen Debatte erfolgreich zu sein, sondern vielmehr grundsätzliche Zweifel an der Wissenschaft als Instrument der Wirklichkeitserklärung zu säen.” Damit fänden sie große Sympathie “bei vielen antiaufklärerischen Kräften’.  

In English:  

Potsdam climate researcher Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber, a signatory of the Science Letter, thinks the sceptics in Germany have less influence than in the USA. They involve very different groups, the Director of the Institute for Climate Impact Research told the Frankfurter Rundschau. Most of them ‘operate from the safety of anonymity in the internet. They don’t try at all to do it successfully through a factual debate; rather they attempt to sow scepticism on science being an instrument to explain reality.’  This is how they gain much sympathy ‘from the many forces of anti-science’.  

In Schellnhuber’s world, scepticism is anti-science. And if you doubt their science, then you are anti-science.

Oh, by the way, let’s not forget that reality and science for them are doctored up iStock polar bear photos and manipulated temperature curves. And who are the ones who keep running and hiding from debate?  

What about the polar bear photo in the Frankfurter Rundschau piece? The caption reads: “Polar bears searching for food”. But at least that photo, as far as I can tell, hasn’t been doctored.

Explore posts in the same categories: Hockey Team

11 Comments on “Schellnhuber: Now Scepticism Is Anti-Science!”

  1. Araucan Says:

    Encore un amalgame ou une caricature pour les sceptiques du climat !

  2. Ed Caryl Says:

    The warmests are becoming frightened, and for good reason. Reputations and, indeed, careers are on the line. They have fully commited to the CAGW religion and can’t back out. Our task, should we take it on, is to show them a path out of their predicament.

    First, they need to stop seeing everything as caused by CAGW. Everything cycles. No population of anything living is completely stable. The oceans cycle. The sun cycles. The seasons cycle. The recent lizard study is a good example of misinterpreting a natural cycle as caused by CAGW.

    Second, they need to get serious about the quality of the measurements. I’m sick of reading about temperatures contaminated by urban warming, improper station siting, and sloppy data handliing. I don’t want to hear about ice core contamination. I want the computer programs to be unbiased.

    Third, (and this is probably the hardest) the strings must be removed from the science funding. When you buy the outcome, you buy a lie.

    It is time to start over from scratch on climate science.

  3. Mervyn Sullivan Says:

    This philosophy of science was formally instituted 350 years ago in London by the small band of men, including Christopher Wren and Robert Boyle, who founded the Royal Society, the world’s oldest national academy of science. Their motto, Nullius in verba (“Take nobody’s word for it”) embodies the Royal Society’s founding principle of basing conclusions on observation and experiment rather than the voice of authority.

    After the Greenies seized control of the Royal Society they abandoned that motto of centuries and replaced it with one that is apparently bland but actually reverses the sentiment. What has happened?

    The Royal Society, as a major part of the flowering of the tradition, was founded on the basis of scepticism. Its motto “On the word of no one” was a stout affirmation. Now suddenly, following their successful coup, the Greens have changed this motto of centuries to one that manages to be both banal and sinister – “Respect the facts.” When people start talking about “the facts” it is time to start looking for the fictions. Real science does not talk about facts; it talks about observations, which might turn out to be inaccurate or even irrelevant.

    http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/2010_february.htm

  4. cleanwater Says:

    My father was born in Frankfurt-a-Main and taught me a saying Excuse my spelling”Sie waser the Mau brent”
    If Dr Schellnhuber was intelligent enough to read any one of these reference he would realize why there is so much Scepticism.
    List of references:
    The paper “Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect within the frame of physics” by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner is an in-depth examination of the subject. Version 4 2009
    Electronic version of an article published as International Journal of Modern Physics
    B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (2009) 275{364 , DOI No: 10.1142/S021797920904984X, c World
    Scientific Publishing Company, http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb.
    Report of Alan Carlin of US-EPA March, 2009 that shows that CO2 does not cause global warming.

    Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis Violates Fundamentals of Physics” by Dipl-Ing Heinz Thieme This work has about 10 or 12 link
    that support the truth that the greenhouse gas effect is a hoax.
    R.W.Wood
    from the Philosophical magazine (more properly the London, Edinborough and Dublin Philosophical Magazine , 1909, vol 17, p319-320. Cambridge UL shelf mark p340.1.c.95, if you’re interested.
    The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory
    By Alan Siddons
    from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_hidden_flaw_in_greenhouse.html at March 01, 2010 – 09:10:34 AM CST

    The bottom line is that the facts show that the greenhouse gas effect is a fairy-tale and that Man-made global warming is the World larges Scam! The IPCC and Al Gore should be charged under the US Anti-racketeering act [-delete – we get the message].

    Web- site references:
    http://www.americanthinker.com Ponder the Maunder
    wwwclimatedepot.com
    icecap.us
    http://www.stratus-sphere.com
    SPPI
    many others are available.

  5. doug harris Says:

    The proper acronym is: CACA (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Alteration).

    Examples of proper use of the acronym:

    “Some are into antiques. Some are into sports. Albert Gore is into CACA.”

    “NASA’s James Hansen is a CACA expert.”

    Exchange between 2 climatologists:
    “How’s that CACA study going?”
    “Please wait until I get out of the latrine.”

    “CACA happens.”

  6. denis Says:

    I’d love to hear from any warmist/alarmist who has a rational argument about the facts presented in the following google document:

    http://docs.google.com/View?id=ddrj9jjs_0fsv8n9gw

    My email address is in the document.

  7. ThomasJ Says:

    Wouldn’t it be of interest [for any] to spread some enlightment(s) on Mr. Schellnhuber and his [aka PIK] financial connection(s) to the very dominant insurance group(s)? Ie. Muenchener Rueck? [sorry for the ‘ue’]. And, of course, how the insurerer [MR] is using ‘the science'(?) in getting more ‘business’… eh? ;)

    Brgds from Sweden
    //TJ

  8. John Wilson Says:

    Is this fellow a product of American educational system or what? Or maybe he’s just striving for a National Academy of Sciences appointment?

  9. Fred Firkin Says:

    Herr Schellnhuber ist ein wallybrain!

  10. Brian H Says:

    By that logic, being hostile towards sleazy used-car salesmen means you hate cars and transportation. And contempt for astrology means you don’t believe in stars.

  11. DirkH Says:

    His wife Margret Boysen BTW is Art Director at the Potsdam Institut für Klimafolgenabschätzung:

    http://spritz.de/index.php?module=Pagesetter&func=viewpub&tid=2&pid=367

    I wonder what “art director” they need, but then, art is the opposite of science.

    Reply: Maybe the art of deception? – PG


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: