The European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE) here presents a blistering report by retired climate scientist Prof. Horst-Joachim Lüdecke and meteorologist Klaus-Eckart Puls on how a German and Swiss network of IPCC scientists who, using pernicious methods, thwart legitimate scientists and media reporters who they view as a threat to the AGW hypothesis.
Warnings of ruthless scientists
The piece is too long and my time too short to allow a full translation, and so I will present the main points.
Lüdecke and Puls write that these IPCC scientists should serve as “warning signals that should never be forgotten. This is especially so when an eco-dictatorial planned “Great Transformation” of avoiding CO2 is being propagated.”
Lüdecke and Puls of EIKE then remind readers that such threat was seen already once early in the 20th century.
Smearing of Jan Veizer and Nir Shaviv
In 2003 the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) led a smear campaign against Slovakian geoscientist Jan Veizer and Israeli astrophysicist Nir Shaviv. Both are renowned scientists and have won many awards. In July 2003 Veizer and Shaviv published a ground-breaking paper on the climate impacts from the Earth’s orbit through the galaxy titled: ”Celestial Driver of Phanerozoic Climate?”.
However, the paper only inflamed the wrath of AGW colleagues, who saw themselves obligated to rescue the planet from natural gas CO2 using any possible means. Engulfed in fervor, the angry scientists, however, missed that the Veizer/Shaviv publication had nothing to do with the anthropogenic impacts of Co2. Rather the paper dealt with climate changes of the last 500 millions years, and did not even look at the 20th century climate.
The PIK immediately sent out a press release to the media, denouncing the findings of the two scientists.
Lüdecke and Puls write that disagreement in science is nothing new. But when scientists disagree, there’s an academically accepted approach to contest theories from other colleagues, which is usually done through the publisher and not carried out in the mass media.
Scientists stoop to smearing through the media
But the traditional approach was brushed aside by a group of German and Swiss IPCC scientists, who viewed Veizer’s and Shaviv’s publication as a potentially lethal threat to AGW hypothesis. But instead of properly contesting the publication, they embarked on a campaign to discredit the Veizer and Shaviv. EIKE writes:
The climb-down to near yellow journalism by the PIK’s press action had absolutely nothing to do with scientific etiquette and debate. Of the PIK press release signatories, many are known to readers as Germans and Swiss AGW activists and are still preaching ‘end-of-the-world’ by CO2.
Dr. J. Beer, EAWAG, ETH Zurich
Prof. U. Cubasch, Institut für Meteorologie, Berlin
Prof. O. Eugster, Weltraumforschung und Planetologie, Bern
Dr. C. Fröhlich, Weltstrahlungszentrum, Davos
Prof. G. Haug, GeoForschungsZentrum, Potsdam
Dr. F. Joos, Klima- und Umweltphysik, Bern
Prof. M. Latif, Institut für Meereskunde, Kiel 
Dr. U. Neu, ProClim, Schweiz. Akademie der Naturwissenschaften
Prof. C. Pfister, Historisches Institut, Bern
Prof. S. Rahmstorf, Potsdam-Institut für Klimafolgenforschung 
Dr. R. Sartorius, Schutz der Erdatmosphäre, UBA, Berlin
Prof. C. D. Schönwiese, Institut für Meteorologie und Geophysik, Frankfurt 
Prof. W. Seiler, Meteorologie und Klimaforschung, Garmisch-Partenkirchen
Prof. T. Stocker, Klima- und Umweltphysik, Bern 
Today EIKE calls that particular action “scandalous” and that it will be “infamous in German and Swiss science history.” Today many of these scientists act like nothing ever happened. The media, EIKE writes, were all too willing and aided and abetted the smear action, thus prompting Lüdecke and Puls to wonder if anything has ever been learned from Germany’s dictatorial past.
Veizer leaves Germany
Eventually, Veizer ended up leaving science-hostile Germany and the University of Bochum to join the University of Ottawa. EIKE writes that it is not sure how much the move to Canada was due to the smear campaign, but adds:
Nevertheless, the scientific exodus because of public pressure in the dictatorial past of Germany is well known.”
Here Albert Einstein serves as a classic example from the past. Climate science dissent in Germany is openly hounded and smeared.
The leaked Climategate e-mails put Stefan Rahmstorf at the center of the campaign. The press release smearing Veizer and Shaviv was authored by PIK and Climategate e-mails show Rahmstorf bringing up the matter more than once. In one e-mail Rahmstorf writes:
I feel another recent paper may require a similar scientific response, the one by Shaviv & Veizer (attached). …This paper got big media coverage here in Germany and I guess it is set to become a climate skeptics classic:
I think it would be a good idea to get a group of people together to respond to this paper (in GSA today). My expertise is good for part of this and I’d be willing to contribute. My questions to you are:
1. Does anyone know of any other plans to respond to this paper? 2. Would anyone like to be part of writing a response? 3. Do you know people who may have the right expertise? Then please forward them this mail.
Best regards, Stefan”
Not about science. It’s about silencing dissenters
Lüdecke and Puls remind us that honest disagreement is fine but here we are dealing with another issue. What they see here is a clear strategy of “mafia-like methods by a network of AGW alarmists“. Lüdecke and Puls use another Climategate e-mail presented by a US blogger to illustrate that it’s not about finding out what the truth is, but about attacking anything that disagrees with the AGW hypothesis:
The paper will be thoroughly refuted. I do not know as yet by who, or on what grounds, or where the definitive refutation paper will appear. But it will be refuted and dismissed in no time, never to be talked about again (except by ”deniers” and ‘flat-earthers”). That is thankfully the way we operate in climate science, trust us, we’re scientists. Everything is under control. Nothing to see here, move on.”
That is completely remote of science and very characteristic of dictatorships. EIKE characterizes the attack methods used by the German and Swiss IPCC scientists as “ruthless“. This was also the view of Spiegel, who in 2007 wrote:
The ruthless methods of climate scientist Rahmstorf: Stefan Rahmstorf is the most famous of the top climate scientists in Germany – and at the same time the most tenacious. Journalists have complained of intimidastion attempts. Scientists are distancing themselves from the Potsdam Professor. In the meantime the conflict is being waged in newspapers.”
Rahmstorf demands control of the press
EIKE adds that “climate scientists like Rahmstorf firmly believe they are the keepers of the absolute truth”, and at the same time they are so sure of their politically supported power that they are demanding absolute control over the press.”
The methods used by the AGW scientists resemble earlier historical attempts to purify thought, culture and science, EIKE suggests. Spiegel wrote of Rahmstorf:
Rahmstorf threatens with a ‘Black List’: How Rahmstorf goes about upbringing journalists is explained in a notable commentary he wrote in “Zeit” in February 2005. At his private internet site he has a list of ‘classic media blunders’ where ‘I require every journalist to attend an obligatory lecture before an interview’. If the journalist reports something sensational, then he will feel the consequences: ‘Such journalists get put on my black list,’ Rahmstorf wrote in ZEIT.”
Dissenters see jihadist undercurrents
Lüdecke and Puls write that intimidating media outlets is part of the Rahmstorf’s strategy. Germany’s flagship Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung once published an op-ed piece by climate skeptics, who wrote:
It’s a holy war, a jihad that Rahmstorf is leading. And no prisoners are taken: He takes quotes out of context, deletes, and thus does not permit his end-of-world announcement to ever be threatened.”
Lüdecke and Puls write that Rahmstorf does not directly confront the journalist who writes something disagreeable, rather he goes directly to the editor-in-chief.
Court fines Rahmstorf for smearing an uncooperative journalist
Once Rahmstorf took his hounding and bullying of a non-conforming journalists too far when he wrote an unflattering piece about a journalist in attempt to discredit her. Eventually a court in Cologne found in favor of the journalist, ruling that Rahmstorf had maliciously spread falsehoods about the journalist, even suggesting that she had once plagarized. The court ruled in favor of the journalist and Rahmstorf was fined.
Spiegel commented on the affair:
Rahmstorf seems to have learned little from the court’s ruling – rather he complains that there is no control over the end-product of the classic media.”
Thank God for that. Let’s hope it stays that way.