German Association Of Journalists Demands Apology From German Ministry Of Environment For “Black List Of Skeptics”!

Well it looks like journalists are willing to go only so far when it comes to carrying water for Germany’s powerful Church Ministry of Environment, which oversees the Umweltbundesamt (UBA).

Foto: Anja Cord Verbandstag WŸrzburg

The German Association of Journalists Chairman Michael Konken calls the UBA’s defamatory pamphlet targeting US and German journalists and scientists “unacceptable” and demands an apology from Minister of Environment Peter Altmaier. Photo credit: DJV; photographer: Anja Cord

The UBA under Angela Merkel’s Ministry of Environment, which is directed by Peter Altmaier, recently published a highly controversial pamphlet that black-listed climate-science dissident German and US journalists and scientists. Now the German Association of Journalists (DJV) has responded and issued a press release:

Ministry Brands Critics
The German Association of Journalists DJV rejects Ministry of Environment’s recent criticism of individual journalists, calling it excessive and unfounded.

The state officials in their pamphlet titled ‘Und sie erwärmt sich doch’ [And indeed the warming continues] singled out and named a number of journalists who had made critical statements about the climate prognoses of the Umweltbundesamt [Federal Environment Agency]. Their media reports ‘did not conform to the state of climate knowledge,’ the pamphlet stated on page 112. Then the journalists and the media outlets for whom they publish were then named. Among those named are the former editor in chief of the magazine Natur and an editor at Focus. ‘The text passages read in a way that make the journalists appear as incompetent and as if they are being pilloried said DJV Federal Chairman Michael Konken. ‘That is not acceptable.’

A state agency in Germany does not have the authority to brand critics of government policy as heretics, said Konken. He is now requesting German Environment Minister Peter Altmaier to stop the distribution of the brochure in its current form and to apologise to the journalists named in the pamphlet.

Tel. 030/72 62 79 20, Fax 030/726 27 92 13

I think the apology needs to come from Flasbarth himself as well. Now the blame is being unfairly shifted to Altmaier. Not only should Flasbarth apologise, but he should also  resign. Clearly he lost control of the agency. The whole UBA is nothing more than a nest of environmental zealots, if the pamphlet is anything to go by.

 

13 responses to “German Association Of Journalists Demands Apology From German Ministry Of Environment For “Black List Of Skeptics”!”

  1. DirkH

    German journalists of which 99.5% are ultra alarmists are simply miffed that they didn’t get to denounce the denialists first.

    1. DirkH

      Sorry, I have to correct myself.
      They DID denounce the skeptics. Here is for instance Der Spiegel from 2010
      http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-74090731.html

      Hmmm…. so maybe they’re angry that the UBA tries to compete with them?

  2. TheJollyGreenMan

    Herr Flasbarth is therefore Teflon coated, a known characteristic of the 21st Public Servant and Green Zealot, Brussels beckons, and he will go far!

  3. Mindert Eiting

    ‘Now the blame is being unfairly shifted to Altmaier’. No Pierre, in the Netherlands this is called the ministerial responsibility. Flasbarth should resign if the finances of his institution were a mess, for example. We are talking about a violation of the constitution. Where are the German legal experts to explain what should happen in that case?

    1. Bernd Felsche

      Altmaier is certainly responsible at the Minister. Flasbarth has been promoted several levels beyond his competence and the UBA has become a sheltered workshop for social scientists who appear deluded into thinking that physical sciences have nothing to do with the environment. It’s the Unweltbundesamt.

      I get the impression that the German constitution (Grundgesetz) and due judicial processes are paid scant regard when matters relate to “the environment”. Politics, even partisan party politics seem to play a significant role in the German judiciary. Some of the judiciary and legal profession appear to be above the law; a protected species. If you argue with their decisions, they can apparently obtain a remote diagnosis of your “psychological illness” and have you institutionalised, stripped of rights as a legal person.

      The (mainly) lawyers drafting legislations at times appear ignorant of the Grundgesetz, resulting in laws being nullified after they’ve passed through the whole legislative process and become law. It’s mainly external challenges to unlawful laws that result in such being nullified. Instead of the “manufacturer” implementing quality controls to ensure that laws comply with constitutional requirements, it’s left to the “consumer” to detect flaws.

      1. Mindert Eiting

        Thanks, Bernd. I have read somewhere that more people are killed by their own governments than in wars between states. The Grundgesetz is not a luxury but the most important instrument protecting citizens against their state.

        1. Bernd Felsche

          Unfortunately, that instrument doesn’t work without a functioning separation of powers.

          The Grundgesetz has already been polluted by a particular ideology/religion; vis e.g.

          Artikel 20a
          Der Staat schützt auch in Verantwortung für die künftigen Generationen die natürlichen Lebensgrundlagen und die Tiere im Rahmen der verfassungsmäßigen Ordnung durch die Gesetzgebung und nach Maßgabe von Gesetz und Recht durch die vollziehende Gewalt und die Rechtsprechung.

          The official translation is IMHO differently nuanced:

          Article 20a
          [Protection of the natural foundations of life and animals]

          Mindful also of its responsibility toward future generations, the state shall protect the natural foundations of life and animals by legislation and, in accordance with law and justice, by executive and judicial action, all within the framework of the constitutional order.

          Article 20a, in suggesting that nature can be protected by legislation, can be abused to justify atrocities. (vis Voltaire: “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”)

          If one interprets “natürlichen Lebensgrundlagen” as “natural resources”, then that would allow the government to prohibit the exploitation of any natural resource; not for a future generation, but for no future generation; until that Article is nullified. Article 15 allows for the nationalisation of natural resources (Grund und Boden, Naturschätze), but requires “compensation”.

          The Grundgesetz provides for no explicit right for living generations to benefit from the “natürlichen Lebensgrundlagen”. Article 20a in denies them such because the Grundgesetz requires the protection for future generations. One needs to be mindful of the fact that such protection doesn’t violate Article 3(1) which declares all people as equal under the law because future generations are not (yet) people.

          Apologies for the long, tangential illustration.

  4. Edward.

    I’ve heard some German scientists are spouters of arrant nonsense – through their imperious drivel, some eejits conform to this observation and some not only confirm it – they strengthen the perception……. that they are out of touch to88ers and full of ..it.

    […] Hartmut Graßl, a climate researcher and the former director at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, says there is a political component to climate skepticism.

    “Some of them even get paid, by big oil companies for example, to undermine climate change,“ he says. Graßl believes small groups, financed by big interests, are often sent to climate conferences to listen to the arguments at hand and find ways to dispute them.

    Questionable theories

    Scientists accuse climate skeptics of simply cherry picking the theories that suit them best, rather than accepting the entire truth.

    “They dig around for results that fit their argument and then combine them to create a plausible story so that the ordinary person thinks that climate research is misleading,” Carel Mohn says. His organization’s website aims to use climate education and awareness to knock the the wind out of climate skeptics’ sails.

    Hartmut Graßl says climate skepticism is primarily “charlatanism.” He stressed that most skeptics are laypersons and hard to find in serious scientific circles and communities.

    In the scientific field, publications are subject to a system of review where content undergoes strict editing. “Ninety percent of climate skeptics don’t have the necessary references,” Graßl says. Instead, he says, they spread their unsubstantiated beliefs via blogs or media articles.

    Still, Graßl says climate skeptics’ can play a positive role too – sometimes they can be helpful in kickstarting a discussion. “But often the debates take place at a level where, as a scientist, it’s simply better to say nothing at all,” he says.

    //end quote:http://www.dw.de/people-arent-responsible-for-climate-change/a-16843696

    I suggest Hartmut sees a therapist – that sort of hubristic mania can only lead to political gatherings of like minded freaks shouting political slogans – in Bavarian Bierkellers.

  5. Edward.

    Yeah well someone doesn’t like you PG………….or me come to think of it:

    […] Hartmut Graßl, a climate researcher and the former director at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, says there is a political component to climate skepticism.

    “Some of them even get paid, by big oil companies for example, to undermine climate change,“ he says. Graßl believes small groups, financed by big interests, are often sent to climate conferences to listen to the arguments at hand and find ways to dispute them.

    Questionable theories

    Scientists accuse climate skeptics of simply cherry picking the theories that suit them best, rather than accepting the entire truth.

    “They dig around for results that fit their argument and then combine them to create a plausible story so that the ordinary person thinks that climate research is misleading,” Carel Mohn says. His organization’s website aims to use climate education and awareness to knock the the wind out of climate skeptics’ sails.

    Hartmut Graßl says climate skepticism is primarily “charlatanism.” He stressed that most skeptics are laypersons and hard to find in serious scientific circles and communities.

    In the scientific field, publications are subject to a system of review where content undergoes strict editing. “Ninety percent of climate skeptics don’t have the necessary references,” Graßl says. Instead, he says, they spread their unsubstantiated beliefs via blogs or media articles.//

    http://www.dw.de/people-arent-responsible-for-climate-change/a-16843696

    How’s about that then?

    I’ll give him -Graßl ten out of ten for arrogance.

    1. DirkH

      And 10 out of 10 for being wrong. (Didn’t predict the coldest spring in 40 years. Maybe Germany is smaller than a GCM gridbox. Or spring is smaller than a GCM timestep.)

    2. Mindert Eiting

      One invalid argument after the other. He even manages to swich the meaning of cherry picking, originally applying at improper data sampling. If I know of one study falsifying AGW, I would cherry pick that for a simple logical reason (Feyman understood it). In the context of his adhom’s it is interesting to note the Big Oil theory. How to argue with people who are not very clever?

  6. Edward.

    Oops sorry for the double take;-)