A couple of days ago I wrote about an article published in the print copy of Swiss magazine Weltwoche.
That same article also had a side feature story on the myth of climate science consensus titled: Skeptics On The Rise – by Alex Reichmuth.
Reichmuth writes that the claim of a scientific consensus in climate science is nothing but an illusion and that attempts to assert it has become a “ritual“. Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Ban Ki Moon and Naomi Oreskes have all tried to declare the climate science debate as ended. Yet, Weltwoche writes, the skeptics and dissidents are refusing to go away and that their ranks are swelling. Reichmuth cites almost a half a dozen petitions signed by scientists over the years refuting that the science is settled.
And skepticism is not isolated to Europe and USA, but is also found in Japan, Russia. Website Popular Technology.net lists 1100 peer-reviewed publications that support the arguments of skeptics.
Weltwoche also quotes German physicist Horst-Joachim Lüdecke, who wrote in his book Energie und Klima:
Climate skeptics outnumber climate alarmists and have much greater credibility”.
Reichmuth then focuses on John Cook’s survey, calling it one-sided” and that it uses a “trick” to produce the appearance of consensus. Stefan Rahmstorf used the same tactic in a recent interview with the German daily Süddeutsche Zeitung:
That our greenhouse gases are leading to global warming belongs to the foundation of climate science.”
Reichmuth then adds that ‘climate scientists’ use the trick of trying to make skeptics appear as incompetent by claiming they aren’t real climate scientists who can be trusted. Yet Reichmuth points out that experts from other fields are indeed very well equipped to expose errors in climate science.
Even academics who have never researched climate are able to make valuable contributions. This is illustrated by Canadian mining specialist Stephen McIntyre. He showed that the hockey stick curve from leading IPCC scientists was based on a false statistical approach.”
Another example is the duo of Prof Fritz Vahrenholt and Dr. Sebastian Lüning’s IPCC critical book, Die kalte Sonne, which reignited the climate debate in Germany last year.
Reichmuth concludes:
‘The science is settled,’ Al Gore has been claiming for years. Yet there is absolutely no trace of consensus in climate science.”
Weltwoche’s report not only tells us that climate science consensus is a myth, but it also shows that the media in Europe are beginning to add to the dissent.
Consensus is part of post-normal science, an odious concept produced by marxist academics who believed, among other things, that the advent of scientific reasoning was going to create a technocracy at the expense of the humanities.
One of the interesting things about the collapse of the consensus and the rise of scepticism is that it is not only challenging CAGW but also the basis of post-normal science.
Post-normal science was only invented I think in the 80ies by Ravetz. the “consensus” decisionmaking goes back much further, to the Delphi method, I think in the 50ies, and even further back, to Milner’s round table groups – the Oxford roundtable, the CFR, the Bilderbergers, Trilateral commission.
Milner of course was just the guy who enacted Cecil Rhodes’ 7th will; founding the “secret societies” Rhodes ordered.
PNS is a sideshow; a little lie that goes with the rest of the sludge.
I come more and more to the conclusion that Creepy Uncle Schellnhuber and his sidekick Rahmstorff are simply operatives in an information war. Science has never been their objective. They are actors trained to perform well in front of the cameras; with basic scientific training, just enough to appear convincing.
There is an experiment that proves that the Greenhouse gas effect does not exist. This experiment which has been technologically reviewed by Ph. D physicists . Ph. D. Chemical engineers and others Ph. D’s in other fields The experiment is found on the web-site http:// http://www.slayingtheskydragon.com click on the blog tab then on page 3 of 12. . It is titled “The Experiment that failed which can save the world trillions-Proving the greenhouse gas effect does not exist” replaced by the following web-site: http://us-mg204.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch?.partner=sbc&.rand=f6vnbov4rehgo#maile:
The Greenhouse Effect Explored
Written by Carl Brehmer | 26 May 2012
Is “Water Vapor Feedback” Positive or Negative?
Exploiting the medium of Youtube Carl Brehmer is drawing wider attention to a fascinating experiment he performed to test the climatic impacts of water in our atmosphere.
Carl explains, “An essential element of the “greenhouse effect” hypothesis is the positive “water vapor feedback” hypothesis. That is, if something causes an increase in the temperature this will cause an increase in the evaporation of water into water vapor.” ( This experiment proves that GHGE by the AGW is wrong)
Not only is the “concensus” a myth but also the “deniers”
I am very skeptical and have never met anyone who denies
that the climate changes.
@ Dirk H.
You are right of course. Ravetz was the person who codified PNS but the general idea of the wisdom of crowds, etc have been around for a long time.
About 5 years ago I read that Al Gore (or others of like mind) used a London firm to help them frame the presentation of CAGW. The article claimed that “the science is settled” phrase came from this association of PR experience and CAGW advocates. I did not save the article nor a reference to it. I might have been reading at CA or WUWT at the time and detoured to a suggested page. A year or so ago I looked for this “history” and did not find it.
Having yesterday read (on WUWT) Jimbo’s list of “canary in the coal mine” statements I am impressed by his forethought and my lack of same.
John
You might be thinking of Futerra
And their publicatiin Rules of the Game
Clients of Futerra include the UN and the DECC
Whenever people tell me that such and so a person is not a climate scientist I simply look.
Dr. Jame Hansen (astronomer, physicist)
Dr. Dr. Rendrand Pachauri (railway signalman)
Al Gore (theologian)
Dr. Michael Mann (Physicist & mathematician)
Dr. Gavin Schmidt (mathematician)
John Cook (Kooky) 🙂 To be fare John Cook has clearly said that he is not a climate scientist. Yet he is prepared to call many sceptical climate scientists wrong!!!
O/T: Something we can all relate to: “The Sokal hoax, as it came to be known, demonstrated how easy it was for any old drivel to pass academic quality control in highbrow humanities journals, so long as it contained lots of fancy words and pandered to referees’ and editors’ ideological preconceptions.”
http://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21587197-it-seems-dangerously-easy-get-scientific-nonsense-published-sciences-sokal
Isn’t “consensus” just a short and polite term for “the opinions of brown-nosers”?
[…] It’s good to see that there are a few journalists who actually take journalism seriously and question what they are being told. One publication that has been doing a good job on this is Switzerland-based Weltwoche, which has written two pieces about the latest IPCC report. See here and here. […]