Hans von Storch’s Klimazwiebel here posted an insightful essay by University of Bielefeld sociologist Prof. Peter Weingart titled (roughly translated): “The Limits of Science Advising Policy – Forget About the Opportunities“. Weingart cautions us against allowing an elite class of scientists to shape our public policy.The essay first appeared in Gegenworte – Hefte für den Disput über Wissen (Counterword – Magazine for the Dispute over Science).
What role should scientists have in setting policy for societies? Weingart reminds us that if “2 heads are better than one” then millions of heads are certainly better than a small group of heads. The will of the masses may not produce optimum results, but history shows us, profoundly, that societies run by a few elitists are far worse.
Today, worldwide, and especially in Germany, a handful of cocksure climate scientists, believing to be all-knowing, are attempting to tell society what behaviour is acceptable and insist their recommendations are “without alternative, that there are no other choices”. We’ve heard that before in history, too – and with tragic consequences.
“The democratic system has to do what it is told, and if it doesn’t, then the people are too stupid or just not educated enough,” Weingart sums up the attitude of these climate scientists, who purport to have a “masterplan” that will lead us to paradise-like conditions.
In Weingart’s view, climate science has abused its position in going far beyond policy advising. They now insist that the rest of the world dance to its tune. Weingart cites examples of humans already being forced to alter their behaviour: carbon trading, changing light bulbs, basing purchasing decisions on climate impact, to name a few.
If you can read German, then the essay is worth reading. I’ve translated HIS SUMMARY:
The lesson is quite clear. Science-based politics, or ‘society advising’ is ambivalent. Premature claims of absolute knowledge or political consequences that are without alternative, stemming from scientific insights and findings, are not scientifically justifiable and belong in the category of political propaganda. Scientists cannot be denied their civic right to be politically active, but when they do it in the name of science, then they abuse their credibility and the authority that it is based on. The credibility of science is neither based on exaggerated catastrophe warnings, nor on the promises of paradise-like futures. Rather it is based more on the demonstration of the difficulty of acquiring knowledge, the discussion of conflicting theories, and the interpretation of observations and the disclosure of uncertainties. Therein lie the possibilities, as well as the limitations of their power to convince society and politicians. Above all in democratic societies, scientists are especially challenged not to succumb to the temptation of assuming that their special knowledge sufficiently legitimises them exercising political influence.”
And my summary: Prof. Weingart should be advising politicians.
Quite entertaining is the hissy reaction of a warmist (Georg Hoffmann) in the reader comments, who unwittingly confirms why it is not a good idea to allow scientists (like himself) to have a disproportionate say in shaping public society.
9 responses to “Renowned German Sociologist: Claims Of Absolute Scientific Knowledge Are Premature, Political Propaganda”
Weingart is definitely an outlier. Not in his ability to see the problems, but in being able to voice concerns.
“Quite entertaining is the hissy reaction of a warmist (Georg Hoffmann) in the reader comments, who unwittingly confirms why it is not a good idea to allow scientists (like himself) to have a disproportionate say in shaping public society.”
Reminds me of Technocracy (Inc.) who had in the 30ies the plan to replace the USA, Canada and Mexico with a supernational entity called the American Technat (technological nation) and run everything on hydropower. Just like today solar and wind is the panacea, and in the 50ies to 70ies nuclear power, back then hydropower was the panacea; the Hoover dam was the biggest achievement etc.
Just like todays warmists, the Technocracy movement was elitist, nondemocratic, and proposed central planning.
Here’s a radio interview about this with Patrick Wood; he draws interesting analogies with the EU and China.
and a video presentation by Mr. Wood
Peter Heller at Science Skeptical likes to say: “Possibility is the mother of invention – not necessity”. The possibility of having a SmartGrid may be annulled by the possibility to circumvent it.
But for now, looking at the power companies in Germany, it’s only a question of time before they fall into state hands.
Wood is a bit alarmist about negative implications of smart meters. But I found the similarities with the original Technocracy plans interesting, and that M. King Hubbert of peak oil fame was behind that one as well.
The panacea that works best is the placebo. 😉
And BTW the situation in Germany is very similar to the USA insofar as our publically funded media and nearly all of the press and even the private TV broadcasters will without exception ignore this and continue with climate alarmism. Like in the US, our media doesn’t inform but projects an illusory reality, a Scheinbild, a Maja. Why media people do this? Dunno. Maybe they hate us all.
[…] Science-based politics, or 'society advising' is ambivalent. Premature claims of absolute knowledge or political consequences that are without alternative, stemming from scientific insights and findings, are not scientifically … […]
[…] No Tricks Zone Share this:PrintEmailMoreStumbleUponTwitterFacebookDiggRedditLike this:LikeBe the first to like this. This entry was posted in Climate Change and tagged climate fraud, climate hysteria, PlayStation® climatology, weather superstition. Bookmark the permalink. ← Parasites may get nastier with climate swings: study […]
[…] Notrickszone.com has an interesting post from German sociologist Prof. Peter Weingart, University of Bielefeld. […]