Leaked Memo On Climatology Exposes Growing Worry Within German Meteorological Society…”Unacceptable Unethical Developments”

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

DMG_memo_2A reader/professor has sent me an internal memo he recently obtained from a meteorologist and member of the Deutsche Meteorologische Gesellschaft [German Meteorological Society], abbreviated as DMG. Clearly grave concern is emerging over a large swath of the broader German meteorological-climatological community in the wake of the Lennart Bengtsson witchhunt.

The memo was authored by a group of dissenting DMG-member meteorologists and intended to be published in the DMG reports, but never saw the light of day.

It reveals a growing and widespread worry over the suppression of scientific views among German Meteorological Society members. One of the authors of the memorandum wrote an e-mail to the reader who provided the copy to me. He writes:

A circle of mostly older colleagues of the Free University of Berlin, who very much reject the tone one finds in today’s field of climatology, has asked me to draft a memorandum on the subject and to publish it in the Reports of the German Meteorological Society. Shortened by a half and totally watered down, the memorandum appeared in the last issue. I now take the liberty to bring the original version to your attention.

Greetings and cordial asscoication yours, ************”

I’ve deleted the name to protect the source. What follows is the original, un-watered down version of the memorandum – translated in English:
=====================================

Memorandum

On the situation in the field of meteorology-climatology

Based on observations made for quite some time, and due to the current occasion (IPCC 5), colleagues in the meteorological circles have been witnessing with worry how certain developments are becoming cemented into their scientific fields (foremost climatology) which from a scientific point of view simply cannot be accepted and do not comply to their professional ethics.

These developments involve first of all something in the lines of a democratization of science: Everyone is allowed and should have a say in it. In meteorology-climatology every one includes a highly visible army of organized, little known persons; in Germany this is almost the entire public! The changes that have taken place in science as a result have in our opinion (and that of others) led to very negative impacts on the quality standards of science. For example expressed and disseminated meteorological flaws can hardly be contained and cannot be corrected publicly at all. Yet our meteorological scientists do not speak up.

And it is hardly perceived that behind these developments – admittedly – there is also a political objective for the transformation of society, whether one wants it or not. Currently global sustainable change is the same thing.

Meteorology-climatology is playing a decisive role this political action. The – alleged – CO2 consensus here is serving as a lever within the group that consists of known colleagues who deal with climate, but also consists of a large number of climate bureaucrats coming from every imaginable social field. Together both groups consensually have introduced a binding dogma into this science (which is something that is totally alien to the notion of science).

This is not the first time such a thing has happened in the history of science. Here although this dogma came about through democratic paths (through consensus vote?), in the end it is almost dictatorial. Doubting the dogma is de facto forbidden and is punished? In climatology the doubt is about datasets or results taken over from hardly verifiable model simulations from other parties. Until recently this kind of science was considered conquered – thanks to our much celebrated liberty/democratic foundation!

The constant claim of consensus among so-called climatologists, who relentlessly claim man-made climate change has been established, attempts to impose by authority an end to the debate on fundamental questions. Thus a large number of scientist colleagues end up being ostracized, and thus could lead to the prompting of actions that would have considerable burdens on the well-intended society. Such a regulation and the resulting incalculable consequence it would have for all people would in our view – and that of many meteorological specialists we know – be irresponsible with respect to our real level of knowledge in this field.

We must desire in general, and also in our scientific field, a return to an international scientific practice that is free of pre-conceptions and cemented biased opinions. This must include the freedom of presenting (naturally well-founded) scientific results, even when these do not correspond to the mainstream (e.g. the IPCC requirements).

Account of the opinion of a group of responsible minded members of the ZV Berlin -Brandenburg of the German Meteorological Society

On the behalf of others, Prof. Dr. **************, Professor of Theoretical Meteorology of the ######################).                                                                                        28 December 2013

=================================

Again I’ve redacted the author’s name.

Clearly a number of scientists and experts in Germany worry that dogma has engulfed meteorology and climatology, and that history risks repeating itself.

 

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

124 responses to “Leaked Memo On Climatology Exposes Growing Worry Within German Meteorological Society…”Unacceptable Unethical Developments””

  1. Stephen Richards

    Is the Bengtsson affair the straw that started to break the camel’s back?

  2. Martin A

    Is the Bengtsson affair the straw that started to break the camel’s back?

    It’s a significant hole in the dyke that is proving difficult to plug.

  3. William Connolley

    > These developments involve first of all something in the lines of a democratization of science: Everyone is allowed and should have a say in it… in our opinion (and that of others) led to very negative impacts on the quality standards of science.

    Fascinating. So they are condemning the “citizen science” stuff that blogs like WUWT are so busily promoting. I feel quite a degree of sympathy for your authors: the idea that anyone with a blog can usefully contribute to science is clearly wrong.

    What’s your position on this point? Do you, too, think that science should be left to the professionals, and that amateurs (like you) should bow out?

    1. DirkH

      William Connolley
      16. Mai 2014 at 12:16 | Permalink | Reply
      “the idea that anyone with a blog can usefully contribute to science is clearly wrong.”

      Are you trying to commit as many fallacies as possible in one comment?

      1. Gunga Din

        You have to understand that only Wikipidia Editors (ex-Wikipidia Editors or restricted Wikipidia Editors?) are the purveyors of truth whether reality agrees with him or not.

      2. Bob Campbell

        William has ‘form’.

    2. ZootCadillac

      What rot. Confirmation bias. You are seeing what you want to see, much as a child looking for faces in the couds.

    3. Spartacus

      I’ve always been wondering about you William. Despite your wikipedia frenetic editing on reality twisting, what’s your expertise and real contribute to climate science?

    4. Gareth

      William Connolley said: “Fascinating. So they are condemning the “citizen science” stuff that blogs like WUWT are so busily promoting.”

      The portion of the quote you omitted defines ‘everyone’ with respect to meteorology-climatology as ” includes a highly visible army of organized, little known persons;”. I wonder who they could be thinking of.

      I don’t think they are condemning citizen science. They are condemning the way that scientific output has been determined by political methods rather than verifiable facts and falsifiable hypothesis, and they are condemning the presenting of a false level of certainty to the public .

      This is evidenced by the statement saying: “In climatology the doubt is about datasets or results taken over from hardly verifiable model simulations from other parties. Until recently this kind of science was considered conquered – thanks to our much celebrated liberty/democratic foundation!”

    5. markx

      Ya missed a bit Will,

      The – alleged – consensus on the role of CO2 is used as political leverage by a group that, on the one hand, consists of scientific colleagues from climatology, but on the other hand also includes a large number of climate functionaries from all spheres of society. Both groups [scientists and others] have established the consensus as a binding dogma within science, even though this act was completely at odds with science.

      This is, however, not the first such occasion in the history of science. In the current case, the dogma emerged through democratic procedures, but it is nevertheless enforced with dictatorial methods. Doubt and skepticism are, de facto, verboten and subject to punishment. In climatology, such doubts arise naturally with published data collections or with the results of model calculations, which are often adopted from third parties and usually not [reported in sufficient detail to be] amenable to inspection and validation.

    6. MinB

      “Everyone is allowed and should have a say in it… in our opinion (and that of others) led to very negative impacts on the quality standards of science.”

      Not sure how this was translated from the German, but I think that everyone has the right to COMMENT which is what WUWT and other blogs do. To have “a say in it” means to assert some control, which I agree is an inappropriate role for citizen scientists, politicians, bloggers, social activists, and wikipedia editors.

    7. TerryMN

      Fascinating. So they are condemning the “citizen science” stuff that blogs like WUWT are so busily promoting. I feel quite a degree of sympathy for your authors: the idea that anyone with a blog can usefully contribute to science is clearly wrong.

      …says the programmer with a climate blog and a wikipedia climate change editing ban. You really can’t make this stuff up. 🙂

    8. Allen Eltor

      Since you’ve never measured anything for money and didn’t know the Ideal Gas Law not the Magic Gas Law determines the temperature of any volume of atmospheric air, you’re the perfect example of amateurs trying to influence science.

      Watts is a professional meteorologist, you’re a professional nobody – you say. Did you ever work in any field measuring anything?

      You’re the ignorant amateur here. Professional working scientists are always having to correct theoreticians who can’t make the meters go the right way.

      Watts correcting Hansen numerous times, citizen scientists catching academics screwing the scientific pooch repeatedly, the fact is,

      the people who believed in a “hitherto potential of infrared gases to impact global climate” have been laughed at and mocked to your faces until the only thing left is the giant phlogiston fear factory you had all put in place to milk money from eternally.

      You’re a hick who should have done some real work in a real field before you stuck your amateur/academic wannabe opinion into something you

      obviously

      didn’t know the first rule about. The Ideal Gas Law is the first rule. You bet on a magic gas story that violates it.

      You’re just an incompetent.

      1. Allen Eltor

        that was supposed to be “hitherto unknown potential” above sorry guys

    9. RAH

      What is a “professional scientist”? Someone paid for working in their chosen field of science? Paid by whom to do what?

      Time and again through history people without academic credentials have made important discoveries. Benjamin Franklin comes to mind as a prime example of a person that had no formal education in the sciences and yet managed to do great scientific work.

      To this day more comets have been discovered by amatures than by professional astronomers. Clyde Tombaugh had no academic credentials when he found Pluto.

      Tombaugh and Franklin are just two of many names of amatures that helped expand the scientific knowlege of mankind.

  4. Pethefin

    William,

    have courtesy of not putting your words into the mouth of others. Do try to read the text again, although it migh be difficult for a dogmatic mind to understand alternative points of view.

  5. michael hart

    Is a reader here able to provide a better translation? Some parts seem rather stilted and ambiguous.

  6. Mark in Toledo

    what a twisted take Mr. Connolley. I am sure this letter sends shivers up your spine as one of the iconic examples of censorship, intimidation and bullying in society today. Why are you so against the scientific method? Why do you seek to slow down the advance of science and push a magisterial view of science more akin to the medieval Catholic Church than to the modern scientific enterprise? Are you afraid that the actual science can not stand on its own? Do you fear that the data which keeps contradicting the models will undermine the political agenda to which you are so ardently and vehemently committed?

    1. Tom T

      Have you paid much attention to how he and his freinds have controlled wikipedia? Getting anyone who treis to edit stubs banned as sockpuppets. Connely is an evil authortarian.

  7. oebele bruinsma

    It is quite obvious, even for a retired ” amateur” scientist like me (Ph.D in biology and still active in emulsion chemistry) that climate science has been highjacked by rucksichtlose persons mixing politics with science. A tragic state of affairs.

  8. Ed Caryl

    This will be a reveal! I am a college dropout, just like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs. But I worked for 50 years in high technology, as a technician, engineer, product support specialist, technical writer, and marketing manager. I have advised and
    taught thousands of PhD scientists in many fields. My specialty is electrical measurements, at all frequencies from DC to daylight, and the reduction of those measurements to useful facts. In the course of that experience I learned a few things about human nature.

    First, there is nothing quite so dangerous as a preconceived notion. It is fine to begin a body of research with a goal, but to “know” the answer before all the required data is collected is to be lead astray. This is the case in climate science. Take just one measurement as an example: global temperature. Because our sensor network is so sparse, with whole countries not represented, whole oceans guessed at, with known and unknown perturbing influences at work, and the sensor network changing in many ways over time, in numbers, instrument type, decaying paint, changing people, etc., the input data is just a guess. Now “adjust” this data in ways that in themselves are just guesses combined with preconceptions, and the number that results has little resemblance to reality. But this number is now used as a starting point for complex computations (climate models) that all spit out different answers. This is a shining example of the old computer mantra “garbage in, garbage out” which William should be familiar with.

    So, my answer to William as to amateurs having a place in science, is, of course they have a place, and they always have. Many sciences exist because amateurs have collected the basic data. Biology, Archeology, Anthropology, Astronomy, and Oceanography are just a few examples of sciences where lay workers and observers contribute. Climate is another. Lay volunteers maintain weather stations and contribute the resulting measurements. Storm Chasers contribute valuable data on tornadoes and hurricanes. There is no reason that other amateurs should not try to make sense of the collected data, especially if those amateurs lack the preconceived ideas that have led the “professionals” so far astray.

    I don’t expect this comment to have any impact on William. He is completely wedded to the CAGW meme. He is incapable of throwing away years of effort supporting that meme. He could more easily saw off his dominant hand. We will just need to put up with his mutterings.

    1. Loodt Pretorius

      Hi Ed, I see that that the man who references himself in Wikipedia decided to squat on this blog. You are talking about his mutterings, I am more inclined to view it like a sick worm ridden dog vomiting and then eating his own worm infested vomit over and over again. A bit like this:-

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2549351/Its-like-cleanse-body-mind-Vomit-Painter-throws-canvas-create-Jackson-Pollock-style-splatter-paintings-Lady-Gaga-loves.html

      I see you are talking about education again, it was Thomas Edison who famously remarked, I only use Engineers when I want to calculate something. He was another guy with reams of patents and no academic papers. I just don’t know where the puffed up importance of these rubbish scientific paper publishers come from. At least a light bulb was useful, even Thomas Crapper invented something we use every day, but this lot write stuff that should be flushed, and if they want to save the world, should publish their rubbish research on soft double ply with perforated sheets so that some use can come from their dribblings.

    2. Bernd Felsche

      … But this number is now used as a starting point for complex computations (climate models) that all spit out different answers. This is a shining example of the old computer mantra “garbage in, garbage out” which William should be familiar with.

      ISTM that for Winston and his ilk it means “garbage in; grants out”.

    3. Allen Eltor

      Connolly is an amateur who’s never measured for money or actual science. Academics are to science what sportscasters are to athletics.

    4. Jimbo

      Connelly, here are a couple of points about citizens, scientists and climate scientists TM.

      Dr. James Hansen was trained in physics and astronomy. He has a bachelor’s degree with highest distinction in physics and mathematics, master’s degree in astronomy, and Ph.D. in physics in 1967. He is an astrophysicist. Can I disqualify Hansen for not being a climate scientist TM? LOL.

      Here are some notable non-scientists and non-credentialed scientists who have made advances in fields they are not trained in via academy or dabbled in as a hobby or interest.

      5 most important amateur scientists
      • Michael Faraday
      • Thomas Edison
      • Charles Darwin
      • Alexander Graham Bell
      • Henrietta Swan Leavitt

      Apparently Albert Einstein kept a picture of Faraday on his study wall, alongside pictures of Isaac Newton and James Clerk Maxwell.
      [Einstein’s Heroes: Imagining the World through the Language of Mathematics”, by Robyn Arianrhod UQP, reviewed by Jane Gleeson-White, 10 November 2003
      http://books.google.gm/books/about/Einstein_s_Heroes.html?id=XhDdiL8JJyIC&redir_esc=y%5D

  9. John F. Hultquist

    Bill asks – “Do you, too, think that science should be left to the professionals, …?”

    Al Gore, R. K. Pachauri, B. Obama, J. (Moonbeam) Brown, J. Gillard, M. Bloomberg, T. Steyer, Charles – Prince of Wales, . . .

  10. Mike

    Quote: Here although this dogma came about through democratic paths (through consensus vote?) in the end it is almost dictatorial.

    I guess Mr.Connolley didn’t read this bit.

    Voting is useful for working with ideas, scientific hypotheses, and anything that is not certain. A best guess is the best that can be achieved when data is limited or knowledge is limited. There is a desire to have certainty, but some want certainty by decree when their agenda demands it. This is not democratic but dictatorial, and is not only seen in the climate debate.

    When the climate scam is finally over, and those who have forced this kind of certainty on mankind all run for cover (South America looks good), then the role of the blogs will be recorded in history as one of the key factors in its downfall. I can’t say I am certain about this, but if we vote and have a majority, then we can state that it is so.
    🙂

  11. mwhite

    The Lennart Bengtsson affair made the front page of THE TIMES today, (could be significant)

    http://www.thegwpf.org/scientists-in-cover-up-of-damaging-climate-view/

    When the end of the world cult eventualy gets found out and us voters demand to know why we are paying through the nose the politicians will want someone to blame.

    They won’t be able to pretend they missed this story.

  12. M.J. Snyder

    I’ve noticed that whenever Wm. Connolley deigns to address us peons the issue is one of great threat to the AGW mantra. Lately he has been appearing with increasing frequency in several blogs. Scared Bill?

  13. Kim H

    Can you post or link to a full-text version of the original German-language memo? That would be very useful.

    Thanks!

  14. Kim H

    Thanks for your response. I wanted to send the text to some German-speaking colleagues, and it’s difficult to read in the gif version — not to mention the fact that of course copy/paste/quoting in text form are impossible.

    I’m not requesting the original Word document- that’s of no interest to me.

    All I’m looking for is the convenience of memo text that’s already public here — in text form. I could type it myself from the gif, and it would be no different, but I’m a bad typist…

    Thanks again!

  15. William Connolley

    Its so funny. These people are clearly warning against *exactly* you lot, and the likes of AW, and yet you can’t see it. “Oh no, that’s not us” you say. Its motes and beams stuff, positively biblical.

    > Doubting the dogma is de facto forbidden and is punished?

    That’s just twaddle: old men mumbling about the evils of the world as they drink weak beer in a corner of the pub.

    As for the rest: they can’t tell science from politics. And neither can you.

    > Lately he has been appearing with increasing frequency in several blogs

    For months you lot have had nothing interesting to talk about. The LB stuff is fun, though.

    > The Lennart Bengtsson affair made the front page of THE TIMES

    But ti turns out that LB has been a little “economical with the truth”: it seems he didn’t have space to mention the referee saying “The overall innovation of the manuscript is very low”. Odd, that. http://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2014/05/16/lennart-bengtssons-paper/ etc etc.

    1. Graeme No.3

      William,

      as you’re apparently the firefighter on duty, best rush over to the Bishop where he’s pointing out that it was the reviewer who made the mistake. Can’t have that sort of thing going on can we? …time for a bucketing.

      1. William Connolley

        Your Bishop is lying through his teeth: “the only concern in the reviewer report published to date seems to be with Bengtsson’s temerity in thinking that observations and models really ought to match up”. Do I really need to point out to you why that’s dishonest? Sigh, yes I do, because you’ll lap it up without even thinking.

        The reviewer said, and I even quoted it above: “The overall innovation of the manuscript is very low”. That concern is fatal, even with no other problems.

        Your Bishop has very poor reading comprehension. Err, or perhaps just can’t see things he doesn’t like.

        1. NikFromNYC

          First it’s an “error” and then it’s a lack of innovation instead. You mean like Steig’s innovation of illegally spreading Antarctic Penninsula warming over the whole continent, or Mann’s innovation of ignoring the majority of proxies that show a bowl instead of a hockey stick, or Mann’s innovation of then using an algorithm to cherry pick noisy proxies that lined up with thermometer plots so he could call this objectively unbiased “filtering,” or Marcott’s innovation of a pure data-drop off hockey stick blade, of the innovation of creating virtual sea levels that are then labeled as “sea level,” or the innovation of calling debate foes “deniers” in press releases for papers, or the innovation of allowing a single tree to create a hockey stick shape, or the innovation of raising confidence levels from 90% to 95% after further deviation of temperature from predictions, or the innovation of invoking consensus as a *scientific* instead of profoundly anti-scientific principle, or the innovation of Hiding The Decline by just throwing away new data, or the innovation of claiming that greater uncertainty equates with greater urgency and risk, or the innovation of dissolving sea shells in acid and extrapolating to the whole ocean, or the innovation of calling mild ocean neutralization “acidification,” or the innovation of finding four dead polar bears and expanding that to species endangerment, or the innovation of using satellite data to up-adjust the global average temperature in a way that the same satellite data in fact falsifies, or the innovation of doing risk analysis devoid of any and all benefit analysis as balance, or the innovation of “reversing the null hypothesis,” or the innovation of theoretically hiding heat in an ocean that shows no corresponding extra volume expansion, of the innovation of calling climate model runs “experiments,” of the innovation of invoking a surge of weather intensity in abstracts as actual weather intensity has declined, or the innovation of referencing IPCC reports which themselves reference activist literature almost as much as peer reviewed science, or the innovation of using mere mentions of man made warming in abstracts as offering empirical support *of* that theory, or the innovation of NASA itself not using NASA satellite data in their only temperature product, or the innovation of asserting that recent temperature variation is outside of natural variability without mentioning the near exact precedent for it in the first half of the thermometer record, or the innovation of claiming the 350 year old Central England record that falsifies climate alarm is merely an insignificant local affair that just by chance shows near exact correlation with the global average plots, or the innovation of using the systematic mismatch between tide gauges (relative to land) and satillite altimetry (absolute) to imply a sudden burst in sea level rise that is falsified by the tide gauge data itself?

          1. Kim H

            @NikFromNYC
            “…You mean like Steig’s innovation of illegally spreading Antarctic Penninsula warming over the…”

            Epic post! Thanks- I’m saving this.

        2. DirkH

          “The reviewer said, and I even quoted it above: “The overall innovation of the manuscript is very low”. That concern is fatal, even with no other problems.”

          By that yardstick most climate scare papers should never have been published.

    2. NikFromNYC

      As Steve McIntyre points out:

      “Given the failure of the publisher to show any “error” other than the expectation that models be consistent with observations, I think that readers are entirely justified in concluding that the article was rejected not because it “contained errors”, but for the reason stated in the reviewers’ summary: because it was perceived to be “harmful… and worse from the climate sceptics’ media side”.”

      http://climateaudit.org/2014/05/16/iop-expecting-consistency-between-models-and-observations-is-an-error/

      Welcome to the real Internet, William the Wikipediast, a place where you can’t vandalize our posts after all, as you rudely insert whole paragraphs into skeptical comments on your own blog.

      For months we haven’t needed much to talk about, for the satellite temperature record did the talking for us, month after month now going on eighteen years, a good portion of your adult life. The bladeless input data “super hockey stick” of Marcott in 2013 pretty much exposed the fraud outright in undeniable fashion.

      You are *actually* trying to say the UFOs really are still planning to land, herein, as you equate bloggers to the letter’s clear referral to “the tone one finds in today’s field of climatology.”

      Wow. Rather uncomfortable in our own skin now, are we? You are in clear denial, Wikipedia Will whose mathematics background divorced you from empirical science altogether.

      -=NikFromNYC=-, Ph.D. in carbon chemistry (Columbia/Harvard)

    3. Jeremy Poynton

      William. Has it ever occurred to you that you are *severely* obsessive?

  16. William Connolley

    >> Doubting the dogma is de facto forbidden and is punished?
    >That’s just twaddle

    And LB agrees with me: https://twitter.com/ECFTim/status/467354596558786560/photo/1

    1. Law of Self Defense

      Hey William,

      Who pushed the warming?

      That’ll be the scum to be dealt with. 🙂

      –Andrew

    2. Ed Caryl

      “That’s just twaddle”
      Then why are you here?

      1. Maurizio Morabito

        Billy is the kind of guy who discovers the notion of global cooling was “widely accepted” in 1972 and then claims the “consensus” at the time is a myth.

        “That’s just twaddle” is a signature not an opinion. It’s the way his honest brain cells are telling us to ignore his twaddling.

      2. Teddi

        Because its not enough to just gate keep at Wiki anymore – as the AGW movement unravels, he must run around the net and put out fires…

      3. William Connolley

        I had hoped that if I pointed out contradictions in what you believe, you might think about it. I do admit that I’m losing hope.

        1. J Lindstrom

          The statement does NOT say what you are implying. LB has clearly said that “colleagues” predominantly from the US has threatened and bullied him. In the link – if you bother to read it at all – it is about his old University and UK. If Lewandowsky were on the sceptic side he would probably thought of a serial-climate-liar reading your posts.

        2. J Martin

          No shortage of contradictions in AGW.

          Climate models are predicated upon the belief that as co2 levels increase, atmosheric moisture levels also increase, yet measurements clearly show the opposite is the case.

          Another climate prediction that also turned out to be the opposite is the Pacific hot spot that turned out to be a cold spot.

          The Tiljander incident.

          Climate models are way adrift of current temperatures and yet the modelers live in hope that temperatures will somehow catch up with their models. This is likely to be a forlorn hope given that effects from oceans, clouds and the sun are poorly undertood and are consequently largely excluded from their models.

          If co2 is such an over achiever then we would not have had a glaciation when co2 levels were above 4000 ppm at the boundary of the Ordovician and Silurian periods.

          If co2 is the cause of the Earth’s recent global temperature increase, then we must have ben very naughty people sending suv’s to the other planets and orbital bodies in the solar system which NASA have shown have also been warming over the same period.

          These are just a few of the inconsistencies in the agw hypothesis, there are many more.

          The global warming mass hysteria is not about scientific fact, it is rather about psychology. It is a natural characteristic of human beings that they are attracted to simplistic theories and prefer the easier to understand viewpoint of things being either black or white, rather than the various shades of grey of the “wicked” (Judith Curry) complexity of reality.

          It is also well established that those attracted to simpler views of the world are also those most easily brainwashed and are also those that will shout the loudest, convinced of the rightness of their view, unable to comprehend or cope with a more complex system.

    3. Orcaa

      poor willie

  17. Another ‘Climate McCarthyism bombshell’, leaked memo shows concern within ranks on ‘professional ethics’ of climate science | Watts Up With That?
  18. T. Port

    “…..free of preconceptions and cemented, biased opinions”. Absolutely, it’s about time to get away from group think and the constant impugning of people’s (those disageed with) motives.

  19. Hajo Smit

    @William Connoley: I agree. You do have a point! But the true point is: if climate science would be ethically conducted according to optimum rules of scientic inquiry and sharing of results and open discussion THEN it could and should be left to “the professionals”. In it’s current state it cannot!

    Let’s use the common “doctor” analogy. When you have a serious illness would you rather listen to your docter or to 100 bloggers and commenters? Of course to the docter. But now if it turns out the doctor is a charlatan (delinquent teenager) who thanks to being so well connected cannot be fired and you have no alternative doctor in sight… then you do turn to the bloggers wo have something to say about your condition or who maybe know and point out some decent doctors out there that you could go to.

    I also agree with @Ed Caryl but I would add that an amateur entomologist who is the authority on a given species of bug really isn’t an amateur in that sense any more. He de facto is a professional.

    1. William Connolley

      > But the true point is: if climate science would be ethically conducted according to optimum rules of scientic inquiry and sharing of results

      It is (well, not “optimum”, nothing ever is optimum, but certainly “good enough”). Your problem – I mean, the problem with the people at this blog – is that they don’t like the results. The stuff about ethics, etc, is just a smokescreen for not liking the answers. Argument by analogy is invalid; it can be illuminating, sometimes, but tin this case you’re not using it for illumination but merely to restate the same old tired debate; not to move it forwards.

      The funny thing is, although you’re pushing LB *now*, because he’s said something you agree with politically, if he attempted to convince you of his *science* – specifically, his paper deducing a 2 0C lower bound for ECS – you’d reject it.

      1. Ed Caryl

        No, I wouldn’t. I would attempt to repeat his work, like any true scientist, to determine validity. If I could repeat it, and could find no other flaws, I would agree with it.

  20. Jared

    William Connolley the great Fred Hoyle of our time. He’s Fred Hoyle and Bagdad Bob rolled into one. It amazes me how people like Hoyle and Connolley deny facts and live in their little model universe. Connolley would have been a Ptolemy true believer in Capernicus’ day, citing his true belief in the Ptolemy Model of an Earth Centric Universe. It’s sad that in 2014 we still live in an age where we have deniers of facts. Earth’s temps flat for 17 years, “I Bill Connolley deny this fact, I will believe in my Ptolemy Climate Models”. Sad.

    1. Mark Bassham

      Bad comparison !

      Fred Hoyle made some MAJOR contributions to modern science, especially how “metals” (elements heavier than helium) could be formed inside stars (nucleosynthesis).

      His “Steady-State Theory”, which is mathematically consistent, was proposed at a time when the “Big Bang” hypothesis was called that as an insulting term.
      It took several years of observational data to tilt the balance firmly on the side of the “Big Bang Theory”.

      NB : Hoyle first put forward his hypothesis at the same time that a certain Albert Einstein was still trying to DIS-prove Quantum Mechanics … but someone who is “sceptical” of the current paradigm in science is obviously not going to be remembered fondly by scientific historians (if they are remembered at all) …

      Yes, he had his eccentricities, but Fred Hoyle was a genuine “Real Scientist” (TM), with a “contrarian” view of many scientific areas.
      In the multiple areas where his view was eventually “proven wrong”, the effort taken to produce the empirical data to do so actually made the scientific case stronger.

      Compare this with the advoctes of “climate science consensus” today, whose entire “logical” argument consists of :
      1) I disgree with your conclusions …
      2) Therefore you are wrong …
      3) DENIER ! ! !

      Note : For the more extreme activists, Steps 1 and 2 above are optional …

  21. Gavin Hetherington

    Mr. Connolley, if you have actually read the post and think that the author supports your position, you have a problem with English comprehension. You might need a rest.

  22. Alan Robertson

    No one is impressed with your reality- bending behavior. Why don’t you toddle off now, Bill and go edit a Wiki article on climate, or something. Oh wait- you got banned from that activity because of your rampant BS. oopsies.

  23. David Henderson

    Of course the climate is warming. We are in an intergalacial period after all.

    12,000 years ago Canada was buried under a mile of ice. Its been melting ever since. The Great Lakes are the result of depressing the earth’s surface from the ice burden.

    The question is: what is the amount of the warming that is anthropogenic?

    It appears that the bulk of the warming of the last several hundred years was before CO2 was released into the atmosphere in large quantities.

    Before this warming, a few hundred years ago, London had ice fairs on the frozen Thames river. Villages in the Swiss Alps were threatened by glaciers. We didn’t put large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere when the thaw from the Little Ice Age began. From this evidence, global warming does not have much correlation from industria-era CO2 production.

    Prior to the Little Ice Age, grapes were grown at altitudes and lattitudes that are impossible today. This is part of the written historical record. Its been quite warmer in during prior centuries.

    Its very simple: until climate models can explain these facts, I’ll not believe their predictions.

  24. Paul Deacon

    Pierre – I suggest you redact (remove) the author’s job title (Professor of…), otherwise I presume he can be easily identified.

    All the best.

  25. Leaked Memo On Climatology Exposes Growing Worry Within German Meteorological Society…”Unacceptable Unethical Developments” « wchildblog

    […] Source: NoTricksZone, by P Gosselin on 16. Mai 2014 […]

  26. Jay Currie

    This is an “all alarm fire” for the warmsters. Every troll is out. Connolly pulled off Wikipedia duty to try to spin.

    The Times may be paywalled but the Telegraph and the Daily Mail are not and the warmster bullies are taking a pasting. Suppressing science, roughing up an elderly senior climate scientist…what will the warmsters do next?

    The essential problem they face is that it is becoming increasingly apparent that the warmsters science is not up to snuff. They have nothing left but street thug tactics and they are being called on those.

    We are, gradually, pushing back the anti-science of the warmsters. It will take a while but by sticking to observation, politeness and humour the skeptics are destroying the warmsters hysterics.

  27. Jack

    Not twaddle at all Connelly. The warmists tried to have a man sacked in New Zealand for exposing their manipulation of temperature records. They failed despite rallying their journal peer reviewer friends.
    It backfired so badly that they had to concede in court that they had manipulated data.
    The very fact that you try to exclude people by credential rather than argument shows you to be a bullying warmist. It is a typical warmist trick. Play the man not the facts.

  28. George Green

    This latest scandal reminds me of a quip attributed to the great Richard Feynman:

    “If you want just an ordinary screwup, do it yourself. If you want one of truly monumental proportions, bring in an expert.”

    PS: Since I can’t remeber the exact quote, I have exercised poetic licence and paraphrased his comment.

  29. Sustainable Gains

    Doubt all dogmas. Especially government-funded ones. The history of science is an abundant trove of such stories.

    The Germans should know – they gave us Wegener and the theory of plate tectonics, now well established but not before Wegener died a broken man due to the social ridicule he had to endure because he doubted the dogmas of the time.

    Also there were Michaelson and Morely, who put U.S. experimental physics on the map in the 1800s by doubting the dogma of the luminiferous ether, proving instead that light behaved very differently than expected.

    Going back a bit farther, we have Copernicus and Galileo, and Kepler, and the whole motion-of-the-planets story.

    This is not to say that the climate isn’t changing. It’s also not to say that man’s domination of the planet isn’t something to be concerned about.

    One should never trust someone with an agenda, especially if they want to offer you free grant money to do work which, although you proposed it, is only being granted because it aligns with their agenda.

    1. DirkH

      “Also there were Michaelson and Morely, who put U.S. experimental physics on the map in the 1800s by doubting the dogma of the luminiferous ether,”

      I don’t know whether they wanted to disprove it; more likely in my opinion is they wanted to determine its direction and speed.

  30. Sasha

    William Connolley has made an error making his assertions here. This is not Wikipedia, and how frustrating it must be for him that he cannot just hit Highlight-Delete when confronted with real science, real evidence and real knowledge from real scientists that express views and ideas that he finds inconvenient.

    The persistant distortion and blatant bias of Wikipedia on all aspects of climate science (largely due to the activities of “gatekeeper” censor and chief AGW propagandist Mr Connolley) has rendered it the laughing stock of the scientific world. No scientist, student, or researcher would dream of using Wikipedia other than to illustrate how utterly corrupted some areas of climate science has become.

    1. William Connolley

      > blatant bias of Wikipedia… the laughing stock of the scientific world. No scientist, student, or researcher would dream of using Wikipedia other than to illustrate how utterly corrupted some areas of climate science has become

      That’s wrong, obviously. In the real world, as opposed to denialist world, people use wiki all the time and treat it, with caution, as a reliable source. For example, someone mentioned “global cooling” above. There’s a wiki article on it, of course – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling . The article contains lots of nice facts, and quotes, but most importantly it contains lots of nice references to original sources. So you don’t need to trust it at all – you can verify it. Which is why its survived. The reason you hate it is not because its unreliable, but precisely because it *is* reliable. Your funny version of reality is weak: it survives only in little closed communities like this; it can’t survive in the real world.

      1. Pethefin

        You really do think that all the rest of us are fools. What a joke, go back doing your thing with Wikipedia, e.g. the page you referred to since you have worked so much with it:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Global_cooling

      2. PhilJourdan

        Yea, that is why grade school teachers warn their students to NOT use Wikipedia. That is why the use of Wikipedia in any debate is immediately met by derision and contempt and forces the user to retreat. And that is why one has merely to mention the name “connolley” to destroy any argument based upon wikipedia.

        And that happens in the real world. In all subjects. The Oxford dictionary is considering a new term now – to connolley. Which means to destroy credibility. When you see the word anywhere, you know the contents are useless.

      3. DirkH

        William Connolley
        17. Mai 2014 at 20:02 | Permalink | Reply
        “The reason you hate it is not because its unreliable, but precisely because it *is* reliable.”

        Wikipedia is not a reliable source, according to …

        …wikipedia

  31. DiggerUK

    “Climate change bureaucrat”
    Now that is an insult that’s fit for purpose.
    …_

  32. Greg

    On the behalf of others, Prof. Dr. **************, Professor of Theoretical M##################################). 28 December 2013

    =================================

    Again I’ve redacted the author’s name.

    >>

    Well if that’s what you call protecting someone’s indentity , I’m glad you’re not protecting mine!

    How long is the list of Professors of Theoretical Meteorology of the Free University of Berlin ??!

    DUH.

  33. PeterJ
  34. richard

    Thank goodness the internet came along with the climate blogs. Before I would accept what ever the newspapers said or some science guy on tv told me.

    Now I can access papers , government info etc.

    So I read the Arctic ice is doomed from AGW. I then find out the Canadian government have put together a funding pot to build ice breakers for the next 30 years, they don’t come cheap!

    I find out that the Russians offered the Arctic route for transport to the word back in 1967 but the Suez conflict put paid to that and the Russians withdrew the offer. I read that today Ice breakers are used more than ever in the Sumer period and in the 2010-2011 season over 10,000 ships were rescued.

    End of Arctic ice- NO!

    1. ThomasJ

      Richard 14:01: Russia is also building new ice-breakers, Nuclear powered ones, just FYI.

      Brgds from Sweden
      /TJ

  35. Hexe Froschbein

    Is this the same William Connolley who got banned from Wikipedia for littering global warming propaganda?

    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan-markay/2010/10/21/wikipedia-bans-radical-global-warming-propagandist-editing-all-pages

    If so, then posting the above link underneath any of his spam attempts is more effective than trying to argue with him.

  36. richard
  37. richard

    Mr Connolly ,

    Thank goodness for the internet otherwise I would have though that Agw was responsible for more flooding, a little reading put me right on that one.

    http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs07603/

    “The effect of urban development in the last half of the 20th century on small floods is evident in Salt Creek, Illinois. With the exception of an unusually large flood in 1987, large floods have increased by about 100 percent (from about 1,000 cubic feet per second to about 2,000 ft3/s) while small floods have increased by about 200 percent (from about 400 ft3/s to 1,200 ft3/s). Nonetheless, even a small increase in the peak discharge of a large flood can increase flood damages.

    The frequency of moderate flooding can increase substantially after development. The annual frequency that daily discharge exceeded 1,000 ft3/s on the Northeast Branch of the Anacostia River in Maryland increased from once or twice per year in the 1940s and 1950s to as much as six times per year in the 1990s”

  38. richard

    thought not though

  39. G. Karst

    I don’t understand how w. connolly can look at himself, in the mirror, without the phrase “Liar, Liar… Pants on fire” echoing loudly within his own skull.

    Most people know him for what he is. Soon… the remainder will dispise him also.

    We can only look forward to his eventual, well earned consequences, and dismissal from any scientific forum. What he attempts is not OK. GK

  40. PeterJ

    Hi P Gosselin,

    Would you care to point out what you consider within the article to be inconsistent/deceptive/misleading, or whatever it is that warrants your dismissal of it?

    It’s just that someone posted the article in response to my highlighting the Bengtsson affair and could do with a little help in how I reply to it.

    Any help from here would be much appreciated.

  41. ThomasJ

    Hi Pierre,
    I really do have to thank you Plenty for all the work you put in with and on your blog. And I also think it is widely read here in Sweden/Scandinavia – for my part, I very often do ‘share’ your threads on my FB-timeline. Keep up the excellent work! 😀

    Sometimes, by & in reading here (and elsewhere), the rather famous slogan in Germany at the time of the [hot] cold war comes to mind; “Stell dir vor, es gibt Krieg und keiner geht hin!” (~ translated; ‘imagine, war breaks out and nobody shows up’). Ergo; let the ‘team’ and its moronic supporters fight their own ‘war’ for themselves without involving, directly/indirectly, any other part of [any] society!

    Brgds from Sweden!
    /TJ

    1. Loodt Pretorius

      Pierre, the mere fact that the slug Connolly frequents your blog is an indication of your reach and impact. They are scared of you. That is good thing. And lots of us turn to your blog to try and fathom what is really happening in Germany re the Global Warming debate and its counterpoints, away from the MSM rubbish reporting.

      1. William Connolley

        Absolutely: I’m terrified, its so scary here. What especially frightens me is your intellectual brilliance; gems like “Connely is an evil authortarian.” really show up your superior reasoning abilities; I can hardly keep up.

        > dismissal from any scientific forum

        Mmm, anyone think that sounds bad? Remember LB, and your all championing non-bullying and all that stuff you pretend to believe in?

        1. Sean M

          What should concern you is the eventuality of your willfully intended, and consistent, mindless confusion catching up with you, and finally sending you to the nut-house.
          You are merely playing with, & confusing yourself, my friend.
          You seem to get a WHOLE bunch of attention here though…is that what its all about?
          How old are you?

        2. Sean M

          What should concern you is the eventuality of your willfully intended, and consistent, mindless confusion catching up with you, and finally sending you to the nut-house. You are obviously “damaged goods….”
          You are merely playing with, & confusing yourself, my friend, no one else.
          And… “as you sew, so shall you reap”…is the way that unfolds long term. That intended confusion will follow you like a little puppy.
          I think you’ve already succeeded in the basics, and you’re well on the way to being an outright lunatic, WITH an attitude.
          There are highly qualified and experienced Scientists (elders) to defend, and explain the bleeding obvious, yet YOU know better because…?
          You seem to get a whole lot of attention here though…is that what its all about?
          How old are you?
          Its kind of entertaining…but your content gets a bit repetetive and boring. One word… “DIS-connected”.
          What a complete waste of time & space. Sort your head out, you’re loosing it.

  42. B.C.

    Having William Connolley in charge of editing anything would be like having a tax cheat in charge of the IRS. Nobody could be that stupid, could they? 😉

    Remember the old ‘Net adage, folks: “Don’t feed the trolls!”

    It’s good advice, since it only causes them to come back and post more idiocy, thus lowering the overall IQ of the planet.

    As to the memo: One can only hope that this, combined with LB’s resignation, will embolden other long-conflicted*, ethical scientists to come out of the shadows and part ways with the corrupt, fraudulent, would-be tyrants. Combined with the Climategate files, 17.5+ years of flat temperatures and increasing polar ice, one would think that it would be an easy conviction of the Climate Criminal Cartel, but one would be wrong. They have too much time, money and power invested in their Hope & Change to go down without a bloody fight.

    *- They have families to feed and it really is VERY hard to risk one’s job and/or career in coming out against the Klima Stasi.

  43. William Connolley

    > Your Bishop is lying through his teeth

    So, no-one here prepared to defend the good Bishop and claim that he *isn’t* lying? Looks like you chaps need some fire-fighters of your own.

    1. DirkH

      Looks more like you warmists are in dire need of some warming.

    2. Ed Caryl

      We don’t need to defend him. The only accuser is you.

    3. Green Sand

      William Connolley

      “So, no-one here prepared to defend the good Bishop and claim that he *isn’t* lying? Looks like you chaps need some fire-fighters of your own.”

      Nyet comrade!

      Tis not our place to verify or denounce your claim:-

      “Your Bishop is lying through his teeth”

      That comrade is your sole responsibility. Man up, go and directly confront “The Good Bishop” with your claim that he is “lying through his teeth”.

      You know where to go, you have been there of late, but not, and I will stand corrected, accusing the host of “lying through his teeth”

      There is only one actual.

      1. William Connolley

        Well, I’ve tried. Archived at http://www.webcitation.org/6Pf6CDEEf “just in case”.

        So, no-one here will defend the Bishop’s lies. But your “someone else’s problem” reaction is rather obviously partial: you have an embarassing problem, and its clearly unfixable, so you’re going to have to ignore it. And I thought you were the steely-eyed confronters of reality! Legends in your own lunchtimes, the lot of you.

  44. Leaked Memo On Climatology Exposes Growing Worry Within German Meteorological Society…”Unacceptable Unethical Developments” « Truth Is Rising

    […] Leaked Memo On Climatology Exposes Growing Worry Within German Meteorological Society…”Unaccepta… […]

  45. g1lgam3sh

    William Connolly eh?

    Isn’t that the no mark chancer who was banned from editing Wiki articles because he had such a tenuous relationship with truth?

    I’m sure I heard that somewhere, well lots of places actually.

  46. Colorado Wellington

    William Connolley refined the art of trolling to such a degree that his comments here could be made into a textbook on the behavior of the species.

  47. DirkH

    O/T Die Welt says, IPCC statement about uselessness of renewables subsidies in the presence of CO2 emissions trading has been mistranslated in German version (made by German UBA, equivalent to US EPA; german environment ministry; German IPCC coordination office; and research ministry). IPCC’s Ottmar Edenhofer (who once famously claimed that climate protection is not about climate but about redistribution) is shocked, shocked that mistranslations happen.

    http://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article128124861/Die-dreiste-Berichtsfaelschung-der-Klimatrickser.html

    The interesting part about this minor revelation is that Die Welt is a 100% CDU aligned organ (owner Friede Springer and Merkel are BFF’s). My guess is, the CDU wants to give a quick signal before the EU “election” that they don’t want exploding energy costs (after the “election” they will help to further ramp them up again). Expect according utterances by CDU top honchos this week.

    Another funny part is of course that Warmism Incorporated needs 4 entities to translate the short “summary for policymakers”. Yeah, no taxpayer money waste there. Mentally incapacitated politician offspring piled mile high in these institutions.

  48. David Johnson

    Well done Connolley, your wittering has rather raised the profile of the article you were attempting to rubbish. Maybe you should just have stayed away

  49. Mick J

    This may interest:

    “German Government Falsifies IPCC Summary On Climate Policy

    Date: 18/05/14
    Daniel Wetzel, Welt am Sonntag

    The UN’s climate report has debunked Germany’s green energy subsidies as useless. No one has noticed. That’s because the government has crudely falsified the official summary.

    German consumers have subsidised renewable energy to the tune of hundreds of billions of euros. But is hasn’t done anything to protect the climate. That is, in essence, is the conclusion stated in the recent UN climate report which was presented to the public in April. Mind you, no one so far has noticed.

    One of the reasons for this unawareness is quite simple: The German government has simply concealed the findings of the UN researchers in the official German summary. Other embarrassing passages from the IPCC document were turned into the opposite”

    More at http://www.thegwpf.org/german-government-falsifies-ipcc-summary-on-climate-policy/

    Original at http://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article128124861/Die-dreiste-Berichtsfaelschung-der-Klimatrickser.html

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy

Close