Things have really gotten desperate for the CAGWists also here in Germany. That’s what a little Climategate and Germany’s coldest winter in 46 years can do to a junk-science theory.
The piece describes how more than 250 scientists, among them 11 Nobel Prize recipients, have expressed their outrage in a letter published in Science claiming they’ve been the targets of McCarthy-like attacks. The Frankfurter Rundschau says the attacks are coming from “Konservative Think-Tanks” and “Republikaner”, among them the Heartland Institute, and James Inhofe, all designed to “torpedo the urgently needed climate protection measures”, and blah blah blah.
The tone of the piece of course is that sceptics are bad and the warmists are good. The piece also heavily bemoans the rapidly eroding public concerns of AGW as an issue, and asks: Who’s behind all that irresponsible scepticism?
Prof Hans Joachim Scellnhuber, an IPCC lead author, explains it for them. Here’s the text in German, then followed by the translation in English:
Der Potsdamer Klimaforscher Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber, Mitunterzeichner des Science-Briefs, hält den Einfluss der Skeptiker in Deutschland für geringer als in den USA. Es handele sich dabei um sehr unterschiedliche Gruppen, sagte der Präsident des Instituts für Klimafolgen-Forschung der FR. Die meisten operierten ‘aus der sicheren Anonymität des Internets heraus. Sie versuchen erst gar nicht, bei einer sachlichen Debatte erfolgreich zu sein, sondern vielmehr grundsätzliche Zweifel an der Wissenschaft als Instrument der Wirklichkeitserklärung zu säen.” Damit fänden sie große Sympathie “bei vielen antiaufklärerischen Kräften’.
Potsdam climate researcher Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber, a signatory of the Science Letter, thinks the sceptics in Germany have less influence than in the USA. They involve very different groups, the Director of the Institute for Climate Impact Research told the Frankfurter Rundschau. Most of them ‘operate from the safety of anonymity in the internet. They don’t try at all to do it successfully through a factual debate; rather they attempt to sow scepticism on science being an instrument to explain reality.’ This is how they gain much sympathy ‘from the many forces of anti-science’.
In Schellnhuber’s world, scepticism is anti-science. And if you doubt their science, then you are anti-science.
Oh, by the way, let’s not forget that reality and science for them are doctored up iStock polar bear photos and manipulated temperature curves. And who are the ones who keep running and hiding from debate?
What about the polar bear photo in the Frankfurter Rundschau piece? The caption reads: “Polar bears searching for food”. But at least that photo, as far as I can tell, hasn’t been doctored.