Hans von Storch: Science Has Failed To Answer Legitimate Questions – Warmists Have Responded With “A Stroppy Reply”

German public radio Deutsche Welle has a recent online report about climate skepticism here titled: Scientists Request Honest Dialogue, which quotes two experts from the fields of climate and meteorology: Professor Hans von Storch and Sven Plöger. This post here focuses on the views of Professor Hans von Storch.

Exaggeration damages credibility

The Deutsche Welle writes about the growing loss of credibility in climate science and quotes: Professor Hans von Storch, Director of the Helmholtz Centre in Geesthacht and the Climate Campus of the University. Deutsche Welle writes:

On the loss of credibility, climate science itself is to blame. The science has stirred up scientifically unfounded expectations, says von Storch. The demand that the public has to rapidly accept instructions on how to act in order to save the planet has blurred the boundaries between policy and science. As a result, science has not become something that has to do with “curiosity”, but rather gives the impression that it’s all about pushing a pre-conceived value-based agenda: “As scientists we have become political tools who are to deliver sought arguments to get citizens to do the right thing.”

If anything confirms this claim, it is the WBGU’s master plan unveiled by PIK Director Hans Schellnhuber to radically transform society in what he calls “The Great Transformation”. Indeed von Storch is right. Some elitist scientists are all about changing the current socio-political system, and so distort science in order to get the needed arguments.

Skeptics not taken seriously enough

What does von Storch think about the attitude of his colleagues with regards to skepticism? Here, von Storch, who is a warmist, expresses dissatisfaction with his climate colleagues and expresses his displeasure that they do not take the questions and arguments from skeptics seriously (emphasis added):

The problem is not ‘that the public is is too stupid, or uneducated’, but that science has failed to deliver answers to legitimate public questions. Instead they have said, “believe us – we are scientists’. There are many questions among individuals and they have only gotten a ‘stroppy reply,’ Storch finds.”

One example is a recent presentation round between bitter adversaries: skeptic scientists at the European Institute For Climate and Energy (EIKE) vs warmist scientists of the alarmist Potsdam Institute For Climate Impact Research (PIK), and the Max Planck Institute on April 20, 2011. The presentation was organised tooth-and-nail. According to the German online Bild der Wissenschaft here, the warmists made a presentation with EIKE scientists in attendance, who in turn challenged many of the warmist assertions. Bild Der Wissenschaft writes:

Both presenting scientists quickly left after the presentation. Obviously they had little interest to go beyond there presentation obligations and to speak with the climate skeptics.”

Unfortunately, Bild der Wissenschaft did not give the names of the two warmist scientists in the article it posted. I imagine EIKE will post something about it at their website in the near future. One has to say that the act of fleeing from tough skeptic questions does give the impression of warmist cowardice and insecurity. And no publicity had been made by the PIK  (where the presentation took place) to promote that particular event beforehand.

Hat-tip: http://www.readers-edition.de/2011/05/03/klimaskeptiker-vs-klimaschuetzer-eike-vs-pik/

Further reading: http://www.maerkischeallgemeine.de/cms/beitrag/12070553/64289/Potsdamer-Wissenschaftler-laden-Skeptiker-des-Klimawandels-zu-Kolloquium.html

10 responses to “Hans von Storch: Science Has Failed To Answer Legitimate Questions – Warmists Have Responded With “A Stroppy Reply””

  1. DirkH

    “The problem is not ‘that the public is is too stupid, or uneducated’, but that science has failed to deliver answers to legitimate public questions. Instead they have said, “believe us – we are scientists’.”

    These questions have NEVER been asked in Germany, especially not by the media.

  2. ArndB

    The FAZ (Franfurter Allgemeine Zeitung) comments the PIK & EIKE meeting with the words:
    ___scientifically there are worlds between the two camps.

    FAZ/ 04 Mai 2011, S. N1: Joachim Müller-Jung
    „Die Pegel steigen“
    ‘Und die Skepsis verblasst: Eine seltene Begegnung’
    Wenn Klimaforscher und ihre Kritiker zu einer Aussprache gemeinsam einen Raum betreten und der Öffentlichkeit die Tür vor der Nase zuschlagen, dann muss man dahinter keine Verschwörung vermuten. Ideologisch, politisch und vor allem wissenschaftlich trennen die beiden Lager Welten. (voller Text: 631 Worte, gegen Bezahlung)

  3. R. de Haan

    Don’t give tis guy a platform.
    He thinks of himself as a bridge builder between the warmists and the skeptics.

    There is no bridge to build.

    Bad science is bad science.

    1. ArndB

      He could improve if he would come up with reasonable scientific definition for WEATHER and CLIMATE. Instead he says, for example:
      ___“climate change is thus a change of these statistics.”
      ___” I mean “weather”, as we are speaking about a change in the statistics of weather”
      Dialog on “Klimazwiebel” 09 March 2010:
      Hans von Storch said…
      No, P. Gosselin,
      climate is the statistics (frequency distributions, cross-correlations, EOFs, spectra etc.) of weather (in a somewhat general sense), climate change is thus a change of these statistics.
      Hans von Storch said…
      P. Gosselin – yes, I mean “weather”, as we are speaking about a change in the statistics of weather. When we run a climate model, we get a sequence of weather (if you wish: events), sampled every 10 minutes or whatever the time step of the model is.
      __Source: Tuesday, March 9, 2010 , Cold winter 2010; http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com/2010/03/cold-winter-2010.html)

  4. klem

    Perhaps this guy is a bridge builder, still there is some excuse for some bad science. But there is no excuse for this much bad science.

    When there is this much bad science revolving around a single subject of investigation, there comes a time when one must throw in the towel and admit that the hypothesis is wrong. Yet they continue to cling to the hypothesis. This implys that the hypothesis is irrelevent, because it is now a faith.

    1. Jimbo

      It’s not easy to let go because there has been much bitter dispute with the word ‘denier’ flying around. They have nailed their flags to the mast and there is no easy get out clause. Furthermore, their very welfare depends on continued Warming – which has stopped for now. Finally, the very public embarrassement of admitting the ‘theory’ was wrong would be too much.

  5. DirkH

    I think Storch himself has not understood that people like the PIK’s Schellnhuber only use the AGW hypothesis to further their political agenda (whether Schellnhuber does this because politicians ordered him to do so or for other reasons is open to interpretation).

  6. Hans von Storch : “On the loss of credibility, climate science itself is to blame” | Real Science
  7. DirkH

    Der Stern reports that a CCS pilot project has started sequestering CO2, in the state Brandenburg, at Kretzin.

  8. Program för grön utopism | The Climate Scam

    […] Gosselins kommentare til Schellnhuber här. Schellnuber kommer som inbjuden talare till nobelpristagarnas symposium om global hållbarhet i Stockholm 16-19 maj. Hans von Storch misströstar om klimatforskningens trovärdighet här. […]

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