Glaring Falsehoods By German ZDF Public Television Aimed At Attacking Climate Science Skepticsm

As is the case in many countries, major media outlets are increasingly accused of having abandoned real investigative journalism, and rather have taken on the role of unquestioning propaganda mouthpiece for the state or a single political line. The following is an example in Germany.
=============================

German public television TV host/science journalist Harald Lesch (astrophysicist) attacks climate skepticism

By Carl-Otto Weiss, Physicist PhD

Lesch

German public television science journalist Harald Lesch plays it loose with the facts to mislead the public. Image cropped from ZDF, Fair Use.

Many opposition parties in Europe, the GOP party in the US, as well as governments of various countries like Australia, Poland, etc. view “global warming” with healthy amount of scepticism, or even as a “hoax”.  In Germany the newly minted AfD protest party added to its programme that the party does not support so-called “climate protection” schemes. The AfD is to Germany what the UKIP is to the UK, i.e. a very inconvenient thorn in the side of the splintering euro-political establishment.

The AfD justifies its opposition to climate protection initiatives based on three factors: 1) all predictions of global warming rest solely on model calculations which have failed all tests, 2) there is no single scientific result published proving significant global warming by man-made CO2, and 3) there is a large number of publications definitely disproving any possibility of a sizeable influence of CO2 on the Earth’s temperature.

On ZDF German public television, Harald Lesch one-sidedly challenged the AfD’s climate science position. On the argument that the models are unsuitable for predictions, he stated bluntly:

No model that has not stood the test against measurements or experiments can be published in the scientific literature.”

Mr. Lesch, an astrophysicist, is surely familiar with scientific literature, and thus really must know that any number of model calculations are published without being tested by experiments/measurements. Every natural scientist knows this. Very often a model rests on a new idea or insight, something, which in itself is certainly worth publishing, and, consequently, gets published.

Thus Lesch’s statement is, to say the least, quite surprising. Would any experienced scientist really have no idea of the scientific publication process – even of his own field?

Readers may find it of interest that the AfD is right now the only political party in Germany that is expressly against action to “fight climate change”, and has been very successful in convincing plenty of voters, thus making the other parties very nervous.

Lesch in fact never contacted EIKE

Next Leach attacked the climate science critics:

It is always the same people who try to undermine the credibility of trusted experts.”

Here the trusted experts are in fact not trusted by everyone – rather only by much of the mainstream media, and of course the governments who happen to pay the experts.

Here Lesch points the finger at EIKE (European Institute for Climate and Energy), which operates the most widely viewed German speaking website (here) on issues concerning climate science and energy policy and is the only independent German association of scientists that discusses climate questions. Lesch added:

Of course I try to discuss this with them. I even tried to get in contact with them by phone, but they do not answer.”

This is untrue. A check among all EIKE members reveals that no EIKE member has ever received any inquiry from Leash in any way, shape or form. In return, however, EIKE requested the ZDF TV station to arrange contact with Lesch. Sadly the public-funded ZDF TV station refused to let EIKE contact Lesch.

ZDF refuses to give sceptics time

Requests for a public discussion between EIKE and the publicly-paid Mr. Lesch continue to go unanswered.

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

Related reading:

NTZ comment: The constant falsehoods aimed at diminishing dissenting voices indeed can get frustrating. However, it is only a matter of time before the media shoot themselves one time too many and end up bleeding to death on their own.

 

17 responses to “Glaring Falsehoods By German ZDF Public Television Aimed At Attacking Climate Science Skepticsm”

  1. DirkH

    “NTZ comment: The constant falsehoods aimed at diminishing dissenting voices indeed can get frustrating. However, it is only a matter of time before the media shoot themselves one time too many and end up bleeding to death on their own.”

    Well so go all systems built on lies. With up to 20% AfD vote we can say, men working in the private sector – who are the one de facto net tax paying group that finances ALL Big Government madnesses – are already mostly in the AfD camp.

    Unfortunately – pensioners; public sector workers; females; and juvenile persons who are all more than happy to pay for virtue signalling with Other People’s Money – not to forget the journalists here who are payed approximately welfare level – as THEY don’t have to finance it – are in the overwhelming majority and that’s why Western Welfare State Democracy has devolved into this lying system that will inevitably fall.

    Who pays the piper calls the tune – or – that was so before the invention of the Welfare State. Now you are separated from your money by the virtue signallers and they will squander it on bullsh*t and tell you that you are too stupid to use your own money responsibly.

  2. yonason

    “German public television TV host/science journalist Harald Lesch (astrophysicist) attacks climate skepticism”

    Another Chihuahua that thinks it’s a Pit Bull.

    The little dogs always bark the most.
    ==========================================

    Question. in this fragment…
    “thorn in the side of the cracking euro-political establishment.”
    …what does “cracking” mean?

  3. mcraig

    Speaking of media bias, one thing the US election campaign has done so far is to clearly expose the bias of US mainstream media.

    I know that’s a little off topic but I think the big picture is that media likely has no choice but to make its bias more clear which hopefully will lead to what you describe as “bleeding to death on their own.”

  4. Mikky

    I think it will take some non-trivial amounts of money to defeat the green propaganda of the MSM (as an aside I’ve just heard on UK ITV TV, a major commercial broadcaster, that solar power in the UK has quickly gone from zero to 15% of electricity generation, a figure which must reflect capacity rather than actual output, so its not just the BBC that is incapable of challenging its green zombies).

    The MSM needs to be bypassed, there is no cure for green zombies, regular leaflets to all homes is the only way I can think of to defeat them, pointing out the salient facts of climate and electricity generation, and the amount people are paying in their bills for what is nothing more than a green wank. The MSM will not be able to ignore such a national campaign.

  5. handjive

    Quote Lesch: “No model that has not stood the test against measurements or experiments can be published in the scientific literature.”

    “The IPCC said 111 out of 114 climate models predicted a greater warming trend than was observed from 1998 to 2012.
    And for the period from 1984 to 1998, most models showed less warming than was finally recorded, they said.”

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-08-26/irreversible-damage-seen-from-climate-change-in-un-leak

    Only in 97% junk science is over or under estimation considered 100% success.

  6. tom0mason

    The amount of climate scare stories appearing in Europe, Australia/New Zealand, USA and Canada seems to be ramping-up —

    Would this have anything to do with the next shindig in Hawaii, for the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) World Conservation Congress forum to run from September 1 through 10, 2016, at the Hawaii Convention Center.

    Watch out next for scare stories about models of imminent extinctions, increasing deserts, stressed coral, acidified oceans, forest disappearing, etc., etc.

  7. Derek Colman

    There is a very good reason why the climate models do not correctly forecast warming, The calculations are based on work by a couple of 19th. century scientists who studied and measured the interaction between almost 100% pure gases in a container with infra red light. Modern science has extrapolated those calculations to CO2 in the atmosphere, but the original scientists never studied CO2 as a trace gas in an atmospheric mixture of gases including the overarching greenhouse gas, water vapour. Therein lies the flaw. An assumption is made which is most likely incorrect.

  8. sod

    “The AfD justifies its opposition to climate protection initiatives based on three factors: 1) all predictions of global warming rest solely on model calculations which have failed all tests, 2) there is no single scientific result published proving significant global warming by man-made CO2, and 3) there is a large number of publications definitely disproving any possibility of a sizeable influence of CO2 on the Earth’s temperature.”

    all three of those points are utterly false.

    1. global warming is caused by the properties of a gas (CO2)

    2. “proving” is a utterly stupid concept outside of mathematics. As far as science goes on other topics, consider global warming to be “proven”.

    3. There is not. Please provide a single link to “definitely disproving any possibility of a sizeable influence of CO2”

    1. AndyG55

      ““definitely disproving any possibility of a sizeable influence of CO2”

      So again, sop shows his ABJECT IGNORANCE of science.

      Well done, sop.

      Your scientific ignorance is again noted.

    2. AndyG55

      “all three of those points are UTTERLY FALSE.

      1. global warming is caused by the properties of a gas (CO2)”

      WOW. finally you realise the FACTS

      sop becomes a skeptic, and realises that CO2 has ZERO influence on temperature. 🙂

  9. Graeme No.3

    Andy:
    sod isn’t a sceptic, he is stating the dogma.
    1. CO2 causes warming.
    2. This is a matter of faith and requires no proof.
    3. Any questioning sceptics must prove a negative. Or if something isn’t happening then you must show why it isn’t happening because if you cannot what isn’t happening must be happening.

    What worries me is that he was allowed to breed, unless that also hasn’t been happening.

    1. DirkH

      Funny that you say that. I just found more evidence of the mutational decline of humanity.
      https://dirkhblog.wordpress.com/2016/08/27/humanitys-decline-accelerates-the-enemy-is-now-a-total-mutant-moron/

    2. AndyG55

      I read it that the three points he put forwards were utterly false.

      And they are!

      In Science and in reality

      1. There is NO proof that CO2 causes any warming in an open convective atmosphere.

      2. The hypothesis of CO2 warming have NEVER been proven, it remains an unproven hypothesis. A baseless idea, more like it.

      3. He is saying he cannot provide one single link proving that CO2 causes warming in a convective atmosphere, so we have to prove it doesn’t. A totally ILLOGICAL statement only fit for a low-end scammer or similar.

  10. DirkH

    Interesting way the German Liar Media phrases their headline abuot the current heatwave in Germany:
    “Rekordhitze in Deutschland
    Der Samstag war der heißeste Tag des Jahres. […] 37,9 Grad meldete der Deutsche Wetterdienst aus Saarbrücken. Nur ein paar Grad fehlten zu einem neuen Allzeithoch.”
    http://www.faz.net/aktuell/gesellschaft/fast-38-grad-rekordhitze-in-deutschland-14409134.html?google_editors_picks=true
    Transl.: “Record Heat in Germany!
    Saturday hottest day of year! Saarbruecken (in the sun rich SW) saw 37.9 centigrade! (102 F) Only a few centigrade (3, namely, or about 6 F) were missing for the alltime record!”

    Now isn’t this funny. We dropped THREE CENTIGRADES from the heat record in ONE YEAR; meaning that at this level of cooling we will get to absolute zero in a century. Can you imagine the caterwauling if a heat record were broken by 0.01 degrees?

    So – strong cooling.

  11. Analitik

    Our national broadcaster imported a particle physicist (Brian Cox) to present misleading “evidence” of CAGW as part of an ambush for a climate sceptic politician. Luckily, he was familiar with the adjustments made to the GISS temperature sets.

    https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/video/2016/aug/16/i-brought-the-graph-brian-cox-and-malcolm-roberts-debate-climate-change-on-qa-video