German Skeptics Hit Back At Industry-Funded Radicals

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

The Green Parliamentarians in Germany have a lot of questions to answer.

Awhile back, spooked by a visit to Germany by Fred Singer, they sent a QUERY to the ruling government in attempt to stem the rising tide of skepticism in Germany.

Their query was filled with use of the word “denier” and attempted marginalize and demonize people who had different opinion, like the Berlin Manhattan Institute, EIKE, Fred Singer and the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Liberty.

Well, the Berlin Manhattan Institute, together with the Internet blog antibuerokratieteam.net, have fired back with a query of their own addressed at the green radicals. Below it’s in English.

It has 16 questions for the Greens to answer, though don’t get your hopes up that they will.

I was surprised by the extent the Greens are just hacks of industry – see Question No. 11.
========================================================

Query to the Parliamentary Faction ALLIANCE 90/THE GREENS

From:      Berlin Manhattan Institute and antibuerokratieteam.net
To:            German Green Parliamentarians
Subject: Position of the ALLIANCE 90/THE GREENS regarding open scientific debate and tolerating people with different views

Parliamentarians Dr. Hermann Ott, Bärbel Höhn, Hans-Josef Fell, Sylvia Kotting-Uhl, Oliver Krischer, Undine Kurth (Quedlinburg), Nicole Maisch, Dorothea Steiner and the faction ALLIANCE 90/THE GREENS submitted an official query to the German Government (BT-Printed Document 17/3613), 3 November 2010.

This query also included an assessment of the scientific reputation of “climate denier” Prof. Fred Singer, and further asked if any peer-review works questioning the AGW hypothesis exist, and, if so, are they supported by scientific data?

The query submitted by the Greens, and especially its condescending tone, compel us to present the ALLIANCE 90/THE GREENS with a query of our own.

We ask the following questions to the ALLIANCE 90/THE GREENS:

1. Are the Greens aware that there are over 800 scientific papers that have been published and peer-reviewed, as well approx. 4000 sources of cited literature in the NIPCC Report Climate Change Reconsidered which question man-made climate change, and are all supported by scientific data? If not aware, do the Greens intend to expand their scientific knowledge so that in the future they will know the number of scientific publications out there?  And if yes, then why do the Greens deny their existence?

2. Are the members of the Green Parliamentarian faction aware that climate science is in fact still a very new scientific field that it has only begun to process the vast amounts of data collected thus far, and that it produces new surprising findings daily and is still a long way from being understood?  Are the members of the faction of Green Parliamentarians aware that scientific theories require empirical confirmation, and that their truth cannot be tested by model analyses?

3. Will the Greens even send a representative to the 3rd International Conference on Climate and Energy taking place in Berlin on December 3 -4 2010 with the objective of having a scientific discussion with the distinguished scientists who will be speaking there? Or will you remain hidden in your bunker?

4. If the Greens believe that the question of climate change and its possible human causes is already settled for good, then why don’t they call for the end of all the taxpayer financing of climate research work, especially when all the questions are answered? Are the Greens still aware of any redundant, needless  scientific work still taking place now that the questions are answered?

5. Are the Greens aware of any other institution, except for the Pope and their own party, that claims to be infallible?

6. The Greens cite the publications of the IPCC. Are the Greens aware of any incidents where scientific works questioning manmade climate change were either suppressed on multiple occasions in concerted actions, falsified, falsely presented, or not based on scientific research subjected to peer review (e.g. Climategate, Himalayagate, Glaciergate, Amazongate)?

7. Are you aware that the scientific career of Prof. Fred Singer, whom you characterize as unserious and unscientific, includes the following achievements and milestones? At the age of 16, Singer, as a Jew, had to leave Austria with his parents and emigrate to the United States, received a B.E.E. in electrical engineering from Ohio State University in 1943, an A.M. in physics from Princeton in 1944, taught physics at Princeton while he worked on his masters and his doctorate, obtaining his PhD there in 1948, he worked on the rocket science program of Johns Hopkins University for studying the ionosphere from 1946 to 1950, was attached to the U.S. Embassy in London as a scientific liaison officer with the Office of Naval Research from 1950 to 1953 where he studied research programs in Europe into cosmic radiation and nuclear physics, became Associate Professor of Physics at the University of Maryland and of the Center for Atmospheric and Space Physics in 1953, directed the meteorological satellite services for the National Weather Satellite Center (today at the NOAA) in 1962, was first dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences at the University of Miami in 1964, was deputy assistant secretary with the U.S. Department of the Interior in Water Management from 1967 to 1971 which at the time was also responsible for Atmospheric and Oceanic affairs, was also Deputy Assistant Administrator (Policy) at the U;S. Department of Environment from 1970 to 1971, Professor for Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia in 1971, retired 1994, and is author of numerous scientific papers and books.

8. Are the Greens aware that leading American climatologist Prof. Dr. Judith Curry, Director of Georgia Tech Institute Geophysical and Atmospheric Sciences, was invited on November 17, 2010 to appear before the Congressional Energy and Environment subcommittee to testify as an expert and said: “Manmade climate change is a theory, where the basic mechanisms are well understood but because of the extent of climate change due to feedback processes, it is highly uncertain. (…) The conflict over the theory of man-made climate change is based on our lack of knowledge on natural variability”? Do the Greens regard this scientist, who has published 144 peer reviewed papers, received numerous awards and was publisher of the American Journal Society for Meteorology, as a “denier”? Or is the Green Faction ready to acknowledge that there is also much theory in the field of climatology, just like in every other area of science?

9. Is it your view that distinguishing between unserious, unscientific work and serious, scientific work is done solely by determining whether a work supports or opposes the political standards of the Green Party?

10. Do the Greens believe that it is just a lucky coincidence that no journalist has ever gotten the idea to check up on the scientific reputation of experts that are paid by the Greens?

11. What is the Greens’ position on the fact that your politics accompanies the extreme subsidies to solar and wind energy, bought by donations from, among others, IBC Solar AG, SMA Solar Technology AG, Ostwind, Umweltkontor Renewable Energy, EWO Energietechnologie GmbH, Conergy AG, Pro Vento, Nordex AG, Windpark G. W. Meerhof GmbH & Co. KG, Ersol AGder Windpark GmbH & Co. KG, Wind Project Development GmbH, Solarworld AG, SMA Technologie AG, Solon AG fir Solar Technology, AGU Energy and Electrotechnology GmbH?

12. In which renewable energy industries, which are highly subsidized by law, and to what extent, have Parliamentarians of the Green Faction invested, and thus guaranteed themselves a sure financial return at the consumers’ expense?

13. Do the Greens intend to continue their constant use of the expression “climate denier” thus directly implying “Holocaust deniers”? If yes, do the Greens intend to amend corpus delicti of sedition (§ 130 StGB), so that future statements on climate change can be punished if they fo not comply with the party line of ALLIANCE 90/THE GREENS?

14. Will the Greens continue to use public money to encourage and incite others to commit of acts of crime, such as vandalizing rail tracks?

15. Will the Greens call protests at nuclear waste storage facilities only when they are in the opposition, and do the opposite when they are not?

16. Are the Greens aware of the point you’ve reached today when you have to be asked such questions?

Berlin, 30 November 2010

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

Lots of questions for the Greens to answer. We’re all holding our breaths!

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

7 responses to “German Skeptics Hit Back At Industry-Funded Radicals”

  1. R. de Haan

    Please send a copy to Angela Merkel

  2. M White

    Hope to see any reply on this blogg

  3. Donna Lafamboise

    Interesting times. Thanks so much for providing this.

  4. Nonoy Oplas

    hahaha, that’s a lot of difficult questions to answer for the warmers! Keep it up!

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