Leading Zoologist Slams Attacks On “Climate Skeptics”…Germany’s “Ministry Of Truth”

At the online Die Welt Prof. Josef Reichholf penned a commentary on climate science and the abuse by a German government attempting to act as a ministry of truth: “Quickly one gets labeled ‘climate denier’“.

Leading German zoologist Prof. Josef Reichholf slams data manipulations, German government acting as “Ministry of Truth”. Photo credit: Josef Reichholf, here.

The former Technical University of Munich zoologist/evolutionary biologist is considered among the top of his field. In his piece he first casts climate models into doubt, pointing out that temperature observations in fact diverge from the model projections. He sharply criticizes scientists who hold climate models as the truth and who fudge or cherry-pick the data so that they fit a predetermined outcome: “The data that fit are the right ones!”

Objective commentary “hardly possible”

He reminds that science entails skepticism, and if that is scorned, then something has to be very wrong with the science. Reichholf blasts the hostile environment in which skeptical journalists find themselves in Germany whenever they look at the data objectively. He writes:

An objective journalistic commentary here is hardly possible. Anyone who dares to do so risks being labelled a climate skeptic‘ or even a ‘climate denier’.”

Ministry of Truth

Reichholf slams Germany’s Ministry of Environment, which in 2013 defamed skeptical science journalist Michael Miersch (and other) in a government information brochure, where the Ministry wrote that they could not be trusted with climate science, portraying them as “spreaders of half-truths and misinformation“. He asks:

“Are we on the way to a Ministry of Truth?”

Reichholf concludes:

No office, also no federal ministry, can posses the dictatorial power over the progress of science. Critical journalism is needed here. Very much so!”

 

65 responses to “Leading Zoologist Slams Attacks On “Climate Skeptics”…Germany’s “Ministry Of Truth””

  1. Paula

    Science is not static. If it was, there would be no more need for scientists as we would already know everything. Climate denier? How about those lib/prog/Marxist/maoist/alinsky soros paid climate LIARS?

  2. tom0mason

    Well said Prof. Josef Reichholf!

    Science is NOT a catalog of facts but an incomplete array of interlinked approximations attempting to explain the natural universe around us. As our approximations get closer to the actuality our knowledge expands revealing more to be investigated.
    Our scientific explanations are only partial and often inaccurate, limited as we are by our imaginations and the limited technical means that we can deploy to investigate observed natural phenomena. We should never forget that we humans are part of nature and have a place in it, forget this and disaster ensues.

    As far as ‘climate science’ is to be considered a worthwhile investigation in science, it only holds merit as long as hubris and the demented ideas that we ‘know the facts’, or the belief that unverified climate models reflect a true representation are removed from any further discourse on the subject. The facts (approximations) are still being assessed and modified, the models (in as far as they are useful) do not reflect reality.
    ‘Climate science’ is a very young field of scientific investigation, a work in progress that thus far has yet to reveal anything truly substantial.

    No office, also no federal ministry, can posses the dictatorial power over the progress of science. Critical journalism is needed here. Very much so!”

    or in other words –

    “Not here to worship what is known, but to question it” – Jacob Bronowski.

  3. sod

    Sorry, but the article starts with a clear LIE:

    “Die globale Temperatur steigt trotz wachsenden CO2-Ausstoßes nicht an”

    and it is followed by another LIE:

    “Die letzten eineinhalb Jahrzehnte lang stieg die globale Temperatur nicht mehr an. ”

    And when we look at these LIES, it also amkes no sense to make a false claim like this:

    “Man muss darüber reden dürfen, ohne verunglimpft zu werden. ”

    The simple rule is: NO, you are not allowed to talk about LIES, without being picked out.

    Horrible article.

    1. Ilma

      Wrong, wrong & wrong. The satellite, weather balloon and ocean buoy temperature data sets disagree with the models and show no statistically significant warming for 15-20 years; and anyone should be allowed the courtesy of presenting an hypothesis. You are very free though to argue and offer evidence against it, but you are not allowed to prevent the discussion. If you do that, you destroy the scientific process and create a dictatorship.

      1. sod

        “Wrong, wrong & wrong. The satellite, weather balloon and ocean buoy temperature data sets disagree with the models and show no statistically significant warming for 15-20 years”

        the original article does not mention the word “significant”. And you are also trying to extend the time period:

        ““Die letzten eineinhalb Jahrzehnte lang stieg die globale Temperatur nicht mehr an. ””

        The article is a LIE. fact.

        1. AndyG55

          The article is totally correct in each of the statements you have highlighted.

          The temperature has most certainly stopped rising in the last 15 years.

          Apart from the NATURAL El Nino transient, which is basically back down to where it started..

          …THERE HAS BEEN NO WARMING IN 15 YEARS.

          FACT.

          1. William Lawrence Hyde

            “The temperature has most certainly stopped rising in the last 15 years.”

            Twenty years actually.

          2. SebastianH

            “Twenty years actually.”

            According to which temperature dataset? I am sure you have one ready and have some “everything else is manipulated data” explaination ready for other datasets, right?

          3. Kenneth Richard

            “According to which temperature dataset?”

            It’s warmed by 0.1 C since 1998. That’s not considered statistically significant.

            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1998/to:2017.5/plot/rss/from:1998/to:2017.5/trend

          4. AndyG55

            ““everything else is manipulated data””

            The surface data sets most definitely are highly manipulated and infilled, fabricated data.

            You KNOW that, so why the stupid, ignorance-driven question?

            RSS, UAH, and NOAA’s own NoaaStar3 all show NO WARMING in the period from after the effect of the 1998 El Nino settled down in 2001, to just before the recent El Nino transient.

          5. sod

            “It’s warmed by 0.1 C since 1998. That’s not considered statistically significant.”

            counting to 15 years should not be so difficult. it is 180 months:

            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/last:180/plot/rss/last:180/trend

          6. Kenneth Richard

            They said 20 years, or 240 months. Again, +0.1 C, or 0.05 C per decade. And that’s with +40 ppm of additional CO2 concentration.

            http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/last:240/plot/rss/last:240/trend

          7. AndyG55

            sob uses NO-CO2 El Ninos, yet again.

            Perhaps because he KNOWS that those El Ninos are the ONLY cause of warming in the whole satellite data.

            If you are looking for any anthropogenic CO2 signal you should avoid those two major El Nino events, which leads to the periods 1980-1997 and 2001-2015, neither of which show any actual warming at all.

            https://s19.postimg.org/y6om3sbjn/RSS_Before_El_Nino.jpg

            https://s19.postimg.org/im6e8dgxf/RSS_pre_2015.png

            There is NO anthropogenic CO2 warming signal in either of the satellite temperature records.

    2. AndyG55

      YOU are the one LYING through your a**e , sob-sob

      There is ZERO CO2 warming signature in the satellite temperature data, over the WHOLE 39 years.

      Before the El Nino there was NO warming this century. The El Nino transient has now dropped back down to essentially the pre-El Nino level.

      The simple truth is that YOU will not be allowed to get away with YOUR LIES and DECEIT, sob -sob.

      The article is completely CORRECT in each of the quotes you have mentioned.

      There is ZERO PROOF that CO2 causes any warming in a convective atmosphere.

    3. tom0mason

      Yes sod,

      You’ve expound such analogous pre-fosilized copalite on prior occasions without confirmatory validation. Is it possible you only have irrational presuppositions, or are you just incompetent at elucidating further?

      1. sod

        “Is it possible you only have irrational presuppositions, or are you just incompetent at elucidating further?”

        the claims in the text are false. that is a fact.

        1. tom0mason

          sod, YOU ARE WRONG AGAIN! well done in not seeing that human’s do NOT control our climate on this planet.

        2. tom0mason

          So sod,

          You have no argument against this article, only the irrational shout of “claims in the text are false. that is a fact.” and nothing else?
          You truly are acting like a person having their deepest religious beliefs questioned. No rational reply just a knee-jerk response that it can’t be right, how sad.

          1. SebastianH

            I don’t know how good you understand German, but the first paragraph of the linked article on welt.de is factually wrong. What follows is some conspiracy theory blabla without substance and rethorical questions to make the reader doubt what he knows and already the alternative fact from the beginning is forgotten. A lovely example of how (some) skeptics operate.

            That should be enough as an “argument” against this article, if you really need an argument to refute an opinion piece.

            Another counterpoint would be that the author thinks being against something is the same as being a skeptic and it should be allowed to be against something without being called out as denier, because it is just skepticism. Ok then, lets not correct our pupils then when they are against 5+5 being 10. They are just against the mainstream mathematics and it’s their good right, correct?

            Sorry, there are some things we know to be true and if you want to challenge them you need more than “i am against it, because nothing”, e.g. some scientific papers linked to on this blog make good points on what influences climate and the conclusions might be a possible explaination, but when someone just says: there is no greenhouse effect and CO2 is not acting as a greenhouse gas … well, that’s not skepticism. That’s just wrong.

          2. AndyG55

            “I don’t know how good you understand German, but the first paragraph of the linked article on welt.de is factually wrong”

            According to seb… , but seb is FACTUALLY WRONG… all the time.

            Let’s see how google translates it…. (numbers for reference)

            “For the last decade and a half, the global temperature has stopped rising. (1)

            This pause in warming, however, did not match the forecasts. (2)

            Not at all, since the turn of the millennium, more and more CO2 has been pushed into the air. (3)

            So it should have been warmer. (4)”

            1st sentence.. FACTUALLY CORRECT

            2nd sentence.. FACTUALLY CORRECT

            3rd sentence.. FACTUALLY CORRECT

            last sentence.. ah ! now I see where the error is.

            OK , I agree seb, the last sentence is NOT factually correct, but an unproven supposition.

            And of course, after that the rest of your post is your well-known MINDLESS INCOHERENT YAPPING.

            Your last sentence.. IS JUST WRONG. as always

            You have provided ZERO proof that CO2 causes warming of oceans or a convective atmosphere.

            Its just brain-washed cult religious belief.

            Yes CO2 is used in greenhouses to promote plant growth, but it is a radiative gas, NOT a greenhouse gas, that term is MEANINGLESS.

    4. David Johnson

      Sod, your post reeks of desperation even for you

  4. Mikky

    Mrs Merkel seems to be setting the tone, is she a True Believer, or just a politician trying to gain votes from (or not lose votes to) the so-called “Greens”?

    The recent UK election provided a good estimate of concern about Climate Change … it never got a mention. Macron did mention it, but he would have won regardless of what he mentioned.

    1. sod

      “The recent UK election provided a good estimate of concern about Climate Change … it never got a mention.”

      this line of argument is utterly insane. The UK has huge problems. Acting on climate change will lead to costs will be shifted forward from the far future.

      It should be politicians moving forward AGAINST the will of the people (we expect politicians to be more wise than the masses). Your approaching this horse from the back.

      1. AndyG55

        You are used to following the horses arse, aren’t you sob-sob.. that is why you are always full of horse-s**t.

        Yes the UK has problems. They have all but destroyed their RELIABLE electricity supply system, based on the LIES and anti-science of the AGW anti-CO2 scam.

        They MUST get out of the EU, run their own country and somehow try to re-establish that which has been destroyed.

      2. M E Emberson

        The point in the quotation is that it never got a mention.

        Maybe it should have, but apparently it “never got a mention” according to this report.

        Politicians who know more science than scientists are the stuff of science fiction or extremists.

        You can’t hold that opinion without people wondering whether you want a Party which will decide what is true. The USSR tried this for a long time.

      3. Dave Ward

        “The UK has huge problems”

        Indeed it has. Take the ludicrous Climate Change Act for starters…

    2. SebastianH
      1. David Johnson

        Seb, it did not figure in the election at all. It should have done because green gerrymandering of the market is rapidly destroying what was once a very well functioning grid.

  5. sod

    this line of argument is utterly insane. The UK has huge problems. Acting on climate change will lead to costs beING shifted forward from the far future.

    It should be politicians moving forward AGAINST the will of the people (we expect politicians to be more wise than the masses). You ARE approaching this horse from the back.

    (corrected two typos)

    1. AndyG55

      And you have your head up the horse’s arse, sob-sob.

      Acting on the FARCE of climate change is a waste of time and especially money. Future generations will be tied to this moronic debt for a long time, as well as having to tidy up the MESS left by defunct solar and wind.

    2. David Johnson

      Sod you have no grasp on reality at all. Problems in our energy markets have been entirely caused by successive government’s desires to promote renewables at whatever the cost. Do not speak of things of which you know not.

      1. AndyG55

        “Do not speak of things of which you know not.”

        But that would lead to sob-sob’s total silence.

        I have not seen one single subject where he isn’t deeply brain-washed with anti-knowledge.

  6. Leading Zoologist Slams Attacks On “Climate Skeptics”…Germany’s “Ministry Of Truth” – Infinite Unknown

    […] – Leading Zoologist Slams Attacks On “Climate Skeptics”…Germany’s “Ministry Of Truth” […]

  7. DirkH

    The BRD is a Gesinnungsdiktatur since its inception and it’s getting worse all the time. What’s the English word, well, no good one, disposition dictatorship, that’s closest.
    There’s actually no debate in Germany but immediate screeching by the regime creatures until the dissident is pushed aside. What is called an SJW in the USA is here the ordinary member of the politico-medial caste of the Old Parties and Old media.
    The suffocating omnipresence of the most expensive state propaganda networks of the world and their censorship squashes any debate.
    Current example: They commissioned a film about new European antisemitism and they now refuse to broadcast the film because they don’t like the result: The imported Muslims feature prominently, and the Left.
    German source
    https://www.welt.de/kultur/medien/article165417858/Filmproduzent-uebt-harte-Kritik-an-Arte-und-WDR.html

  8. Interested

    ‘sod’ shouldn’t be harangued and insulted in this way.
    Being called a liar and described as full of horse-s**t is entirely unhelpful because it misses the point.

    Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) has no basis in scientific fact. I’ve studied the data personally for 8 years and the logic undermining CAGW is inescapable.
    However, the movement against CO2 should be seen for what it is – a movement aimed at choking off the cheap energy which is the life-blood of capitalist economic growth. Socialism has failed at every attempt to overthrow capitalism because capitalism has elevated too many people out of poverty and into prosperity.
    Hence the current slow-burn approach by socialism (or communism) to cripple the global economy and then step into the breach when chaos results from that.
    It’s a revolution by other means. A quiet revolution. A bloodless revolution. A very clever revolution.

    The vast majority of people who are strongly against CO2 (i.e. against coal and gas, and in favour of impractical ‘renewables’ like wind and solar) are in fact perfectly good-hearted folk who believe, quite genuinely, that the ‘green’ cause they’re fighting for is true and just.
    Where the divide actually falls – between what Lenin called the ‘useful idiots’ and the higher echelons of politics who fully understand the CAGW deceit – is very hard to say.
    Someone here wondered whether even Merkel believes that what she espouses regarding climate is true, or whether she knowingly lies about it on a regular basis. I strongly suspect the latter.

    But poor old ‘sod’ is extremely unlikely to have any knowledge of science, or at least to have investigated the data in detail and with an open mind, or else he or she would be aware that CAGW is about as unscientific as any hypothesis ever devised.
    No.
    ‘sod’ almost certainly falls into Lenin’s category as a ‘useful idiot’, in common with literally millions of others who’ve swallowed the Global Warming non-science ‘hook-line-and-sinker’. [No offence intended.]

    So insulting ‘sod’ is not only pointless; it’s counterproductive because he or she will go away with a bad impression of climate skeptics – thinking us all to be ignorant abusive rednecks.
    So I suggest we play the ball.
    Don’t play the man (or woman).
    O.K.?
    You may be exasperated by the scientific illiteracy of most ‘climate activists’ but that’s no excuse for failing to present our case calmly and rationally.

    1. tom0mason

      Interested,

      “Merkel believes that what she espouses regarding climate is true, or whether she knowingly lies about it on a regular basis. I strongly suspect the latter.”

      I concur wholeheartedly, there is no other reason as to why that her administration engineered an energy plan that protects Germany’s crony capitalists.

    2. SebastianH

      will go away with a bad impression of climate skeptics – thinking us all to be ignorant abusive rednecks.

      That is indeed the impression one gets when trying to debate with climate skeptics. On top you sometimes get solid science denial and yet they seem perfectly honest in their believes that what they say is how (they think) the universe works.

      What is funny about these impressions is that the skeptics side probably has the same feeling about the AGW side 😉

      1. AndyG55

        Only person DENYING science here is you ,seb.

        You are stuck with ANTI-KNOWLEDGE, brain-washed into you by the AGW scam.

        Your base-level ignorance of how the world’s atmosphere works is well past being a laughing matter, dropping well into the pitifully ignorant range.

        You don’t debate.. you YAP, meaninglessly..

  9. Robert Folkerts

    I do agree somewhat with your sentiments as to the silliness in some posts.
    However I suspect this is likely due to exasperation from trying to reason with those who appear to lack the ability to understand reason.
    Also, you may not have noticed sod’s propensity to insult others.
    He frequently stoops to labeling others as insane or liars and so on.
    I don’t believe sod and SebH will ever allow themselves to enter discussion on a logical level. If they did, they will be forced to admit error.

    1. SebastianH

      allow themselves to enter discussion on a logical level

      That’s one of the problems here in the comment section. It always seems to be personal as if someone challenging your “believes” is the enemy. If the discussion were on a logical level some of the commenters here would have to admit “defeat” and that can’t happen, therefor insults and repetitions of falsehoods (as if that would make them become true) happen.

      P.S.: I’d also like to know if this an age-thing. The majority of climate skeptics and many authors of papers seem to be in retirement age. Is my perception wrong? Is that also true for commenters on blogs as this one? How come there are almost no young scientists that oppose AGW?

      1. Kenneth Richard

        A free and friendly English lesson (since I’ve noticed you routinely make these errors with English not being your native language)…

        “It always seems to be personal as if someone challenging your ‘believes” – The operative word here is beliefs, not believes. One only uses believes as a verb, not a noun.

        therefor” – An e is always added to the end of this word: therefore

        “If the discussion were on a logical level some of the commenters here would have to admit ‘defeat’ and that can’t happen”

        I don’t think anyone here who disagrees with you believes you are the one using logic. We don’t secretly believe that you may be right that CO2 molecules that are now spaced apart 1/10,000ths more closely than they were 100 years ago are the dominant cause of the world ocean heating up 0.09 C since 1955. We actually do think that perspective is illogical. We really don’t agree with your version of “logic”.

        “I’d also like to know if this an age-thing. The majority of climate skeptics and many authors of papers seem to be in retirement age.”

        Climate scientists who produce results that support our presuppositions are funded. The funding isn’t there for those who don’t support the orthodoxy. It didn’t used to be this way, and generally isn’t this way with other scientific fields (i.e., the physical sciences).

        On the other hand, most blogs that support the orthodoxy are overrun with skeptics in their comment sections. That’s why they have to resort to banning posters, deleting/editing comments, and censoring. I’ve tried in vain posting at RealClimate and SkepticalScience, the two most “successful” CAGW blogs. Any comment that doesn’t support their viewpoint is deleted.

        WUWT is easily the most-viewed climate blog in the world…with more readership than all AGW-advocate blogs combined. A post here from 10 days ago has received more than 32,000 shares. It’s a little hard to imagine that most people sharing on social media are doddering senior citizens.

        1. Robert Folkerts

          Sorry, Kenneth.

          It is not so that an e is always added to the word “therefor”

          That it should have been when SebH used the word is one thing, however “therefor” is a word in its own right.

          1. Kenneth Richard

            OK. I was not aware of an English-speaking country where “therefor” was used. I know that words like recognize and skeptic and behavior are spelled differently in the UK than they are in the US. Thanks.

        2. SebastianH

          Thank you for the English lesson, found out the believes/beliefs thing in the other post already. I am always glad if someone corrects me based on facts 😉

          Regarding the age question: https://www.facebook.com/search/top/?q=80%20graphs%20from%2058%20new%202017%20papers

          Can’t scroll through all public shares of that post, but it is a certain type of people sharing it (click on the profiles and see what else they share) and almost no young people.

          1. Kenneth Richard

            “almost no young people”

            And you’ve divined the ages of 32,000 sharers how?

          2. AndyG55

            “and almost no young people.”

            You mean self-preening, pre-pubescence, nil-educated, scientific illiterates…

            … like you !

          3. AndyG55

            “I am always glad if someone corrects me based on facts

            ROFLMAO.

            No you are not.

            You are IMPERVIOUS to facts.

            You should not MOCK and LIE to yourself in that way.

          4. SebastianH

            And you’ve divined the ages of 32,000 sharers how?

            By scrolling to the first few and clicking on their profiles? It’s only 8211 public shares on Facebook:
            http://graph.facebook.com/?id=http://notrickszone.com/2017/05/29/80-graphs-from-58-new-2017-papers-invalidate-claims-of-unprecedented-global-scale-modern-warming/

          5. Kenneth Richard

            KR: “And you’ve divined the ages of 32,000 sharers how?”

            SebastianH: “By scrolling to the first few and clicking on their profiles”

            So you’ve looked at a “few” pictures, figured out they looked old, and then decided these few represent 32,200 sharers? Is this how you do “science” to inform your beliefs too?

          6. tom0mason

            There is only two reasons to comment on Facebook as far as I can see —
            1. Malice and nastiness, Yes such people exist.
            2. To be recognized as one of the crowd.
            Sheeple flocking to whoever is flavor of the day/week/month/year and making their comments/pictures as important and worthy as collections of individuals’ toe-nail clipping.

            Facebook = FarceBook/F-arseBook.

      2. Colorado Wellington

        Heh.

        You first claim that the skeptical rebuttals here “always seem to be personal“—not true, as any reader can determine within minutes—and then question the age of skeptics, as if that was not personal.

        Trying to have it both ways, eh?

        1. SebastianH

          It appears to me you have not read the comment section lately.

          Regarding age: I am interested in whether this “entrenchment behaviour” could be rooted in the age distribution. Older people tend to not change their opinions and sometimes react as if personally attacked when something different from their view of the world is proposed. Somewhat like this famous quote suggests: http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/39828-i-ve-come-up-with-a-set-of-rules-that-describe … only not for technologies.

          Is there any data on the age distribution of climate skeptics and AGW proponents and people who don’t give a f***?

          1. Colorado Wellington

            Yep, you are trying to have it both ways. Par for the course.

      3. Robert Folkerts

        sebH says
        “I’d also like to know if this an age-thing. The majority of climate skeptics and many authors of papers seem to be in retirement age.”

        I think you are probably right in your age estimation.

        With age comes experience and sometimes wisdom.
        Experience is a great teacher, and wisdom is most valuable, should one acquire it.
        There is nothing new under the sun, and often older people have seen it all before.
        Experience has taught older people discernment, and how to not be sucked in by the latest scare fad.
        There have been many of these fads to learn from sebH.
        Likely many were before you were born .

        The ability to see things as they really are, to see past the hype, often needs wise, old, calm heads.

        Analogy time sebH
        Sports teams, how often is the coach a younger person than those in his / her team?

        Of course another point is often made, that “scientists” etc. are too frightened to speak up for fear of funding issues, so when nearing retirement age this is not such a concern.

      4. AndyG55

        I think its pretty obvious that your knowledge of most things to do with climate, is pretty much is the FANTASY realm.

        You are unable to prove even the most basic assumption of your religious devotion to the AGW scam.

        You are unable to prove that CO2 causes warming of water or of a convective atmosphere.

        With your fantasy science and physics, and your child-minded irrelevant analogies, you come across as a ignorant raving evangelist for the baseless AGW scam religion..

        … and then you wonder why people laugh at you? !!

      5. AndyG55

        Note the SLIME dripping from seb’s post !!

        He is NOTHING but a self-righteous, nil-educated, pre-pubescent, low-end AGW evangelist.

        “If the discussion were on a logical level some of the commenters here would have to admit “defeat””

        We know you can NEVER get out of your brain-washed FANTASY AGW world seb.

        You have produce ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to back up even the most basic ASSumption of the AGW religion/scam.

        You have produced nothing but baseless yapping, and now you are bleating like a docked lamb, poor petal.

  10. Glyn Palmer

    I don’t know about you chaps, but I wish ‘Sod’ and ‘Seb’ would start their own blogs and cease trolling this one. On the other hand, of course, their joint refusal to believe the obvious occasionally rises to the magnificent.

    1. SebastianH

      Thinking about it, but there are already so many blogs watching the deniosphere, who would care about another one?

      joint refusal to believe the obvious

      It’s funny how you think that we are (or I am) somehow not seeing the obvious and you do 😉

      1. AndyG55

        “who would care about another one”

        Especially one run by a pair of AGW propaganda monkeys!

  11. Agent76

    Nov 3, 2015 Why I Changed My Mind on Climate Change

    Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Stefan Molyneux explains why his thoughts on climate change evolved over his lifetime and the importance of being skeptical of government funded scientific research.

    https://youtu.be/3QmkHr0W5Vk

  12. tom0mason

    Judith Curry looks at Observational Support For Lindzens Iris Hypothesis
    https://judithcurry.com/2015/05/26/observational-support-for-lindzens-iris-hypothesis/

    For the science minded here, Lindzen’s theory appears to have much observational support, IMO this is another step closer to finding the true way that our climate functions.
    https://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v8/n5/pdf/ngeo2414.pdf

    I still await some scientific research on the intricate and fascinating subject of clouds.

  13. sod

    To get some facts added: The treehuggers from BP have just released their latest report. The future of coal is black.

    https://www.ft.com/content/da6a53da-5049-11e7-a1f2-db19572361bb

    coal consumption is dropping.

    http://i.amz.mshcdn.com/q4yDNeiCqULCzLTJTsrFQsy-5E0=/fit-in/1200×9600/https%3A%2F%2Fblueprint-api-production.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fuploads%2Fcard%2Fimage%2F507295%2Fc3fec741-ff9c-4fbb-add3-5e1dd34f13c2.png

    The investment opportunities are huge. In India alone, about $15 billion worth of coal plants are waiting for buyers. there is a real chance for “sceptics” to make a fortune!

    https://qz.com/1000602/15-billion-worth-of-coal-power-plants-are-on-sale-in-india-but-nobody-wants-to-buy-them/

  14. sod

    Oh and by the way, half of the american nuclear reactors are losing money:

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-14/half-of-america-s-nuclear-power-plants-seen-as-money-losers

    Lookat the last sentence:

    “Meanwhile, Bloomberg New Energy Finance warned in its report Wednesday that shutting all uneconomic reactors in the U.S. would “easily vanquish” all emissions reductions the sector has made since 2012.”

    so the USA are pretending to save CO2 by running subsidysing nuclear power. sounds great to me!

    1. AndyG55

      Yes, gas has become very cheap.

      Absolutely nothing to do with expensive unreliables.

  15. tom0mason

    Also of interest is this report —
    “Consensus Science and the Peer Review”
    Author: Jorge R. Barriocorresponding
    doi: 10.1007/s11307-009-0233-0

    available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2719747/

    and

    “Something rotten at the core of science?”
    Author: David F Horrobin
    Laxdale Ltd, Kings Park House, Laurelhill, Business Park, Stirling, UK FK79JQ
    DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0165-6147(00)01618-7

    available at http://www.cell.com/trends/pharmacological-sciences/fulltext/S0165-6147%2800%2901618-7?_returnURL=http%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0165614700016187%3Fshowall%3Dtrue

    “Oh, what a tangled web we weave When first we practise to deceive!” Walter Scott