The European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE) based in Germany has issued a three-part rebuttal to the German Ministry of Environment’s alarmist pamphlet, which blacklisted skeptical US and German journalists and scientists – including EIKE itself – last month.
Scientists and experts at EIKE criticize Germany’s Ministry of Environment (UBA) for targeting dissenting views, calls notion of consensus absurd. Source: EIKE.
In the last of the three-part series rebutting the scientific claims and the assertions of the made by the UBA, EIKE sums up as follows:
The claim made by the UBA over the supposed scientific consensus of dangerous climate damage caused by CO2 is ABSURD, BASELESS AND FALSE!
Our Assessment of the UBA Pamphlet
Das UBA is amiss at every level in its climate pamphlet. In view of the politically motivated propagation of anthropogenically caused climate change, the UBA has denied every factual explanation. It has one-sidedly affiliated itself with the prophets of climate catastrophe, who derive their prognoses using fictional models results, and done so without any stringent argumentation.
The UBA violates the Ockham
LawPrinciple where the hypothesis of fewest assumptions should be selected, the paradigm of modern natural science. The AGW hypothesis is namely not necessary for explaining the climate development after the start of industrialization. All climate changes of the last 150 years are within the range of natural fluctuations of at least the last 2000 years. Thus applying the Ockham lawprinciple, the AGW hypothesis cannot be alone at the center. Only more future research can tell us what can be behind climate change.
With the publication of such dubious quality and its forcing of opinion upon others, the UBA will not succeed in ending the skepticism on ‘climate change’. Unintended by the UBA, its pamphlet has indeed lead a part of the media to inform the public of the danger to our democracy arising from the suppression of politically undesired dissenting views and from the denigration of scientists who have a different opinion, and have made it clear they will no longer stand for it.
We hope that our rebuttal to the UBA will bring more seriousness and scientific honesty to the climate debate. Not only the UBA is available for factual discussion and for questions, but EIKE as well.
Prof. Dr. Horst-Joachim Lüdecke
Prof. Dr. Carl-Otto Weiss
Prof. Dr. Friedrich-Karl Ewert
Dr. Rainer Link
Dr. Wolfgang Burkel
Dr. Siegfried Dittrich
Jena, Germany, May 2013