When it comes to reviews of Fritz Vahrenholt’s and Sebastian Lüning’s controversial best-selling Die kalte Sonne book, now sweeping across Germany, Dr. Peter Heller, think tank member and contributor at the German Science Skeptical blog, has published what up to now has been one of the most thoughtful and insightful essays – a welcome change from all the shallow and emotional reviews we’ve seen from the knee-jerk warmists.
One of Heller’s main points is that anyone claiming climate can be predicted and is now solely “created” by man is as scientific as the theory of finger-snap-and-behold creationism. The following is an excerpt translated from Heller’s essay (emphasis added).
Vahrenholt and Lüning do not assume the role of scientists, but that of science journalists. The demand to present the book’s assertions in an appropriate form using the appropriate tool (such as publication in a suitable journal) for scientific internal debate just proves once again the totalitarian demand of the climate creationists. Not only are they blind with respect to the already acquired findings that contradict their world view, but they are also no longer able to distinguish between a scientific activity, and the reporting of that activity.
Vahrenholt und Lüning led me to the term “climate creationist“. In the same way their book helps to put energy policy back on the track of rationality, it could also promote the return of reason in climate debate. In my view their main message is: We do not know what the future has in store for us. […] Somehow this simple knowledge has become lost in our society over the past decades.
Vahrenholt und Lüning deserve credit for thrusting the indefiniteness of our climatic future back into the public consciousness. They show us how natural factors could counter an anthropogenic warming.
Whoever refuses to permit such thoughts is acting unscientifically and against the pursuit of truth. And whoever opts to ignore these ideas, or even fights to create an environment that does not allow them to be even expressed, is also guilty of the same – just as someone who through religious fundamentalism is convinced of the creation of the world by a Creator, an Intelligent Designer. The theory of evolution describes the principles to which the development of life on Earth are subject. It neither provides a basis for the existence of mankind itself, nor for any other specific life form, nor does it provide any prognosis for the future. In fact it only tells us that random coincidences mutually interact. It’s completely open as what comes out as a product.
Where the conventional creationist sees a (supernatural) creator and designer behind the living environment, the climate creationist views man as the sole creator of the (future) climate. Die kalte Sonne holds up a mirror and shows us how they have meandered far away from science.
Particularly very important to observe is what Vahrenholt and Lüning only mention between the lines. Namely the question of to what extent does a possible warming of the lower layers of the atmosphere have whatsoever on man. Here the climate creationists see a huge danger and thus completely ignore possible adaptation strategies by human societies – completely in contradiction to the experiences of the last thousands of years.”
Neglecting strategies for adaptation is one way of creating your own eventual premature downfall. Unfortunately we are dealing with climate fundamentalists, zealots, and not scientists.
Anyone who knows the German language is urged to read Heller’s essay at Science Skeptical.