European Institute For Climate And Energy Calls Claims Of Climate Consensus “Absurd, Baseless And False”

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

The European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE) based in Germany has issued a three-part rebuttal to the German Ministry of Environment’s alarmist pamphlet, which blacklisted skeptical US and German journalists and scientists – including EIKE itself – last month.

EIKE

Scientists and experts at EIKE criticize Germany’s Ministry of Environment (UBA) for targeting dissenting views, calls notion of consensus absurd. Source: EIKE.

In the last of the three-part series rebutting the scientific claims and the assertions of the made by the UBA, EIKE sums up as follows:

The claim made by the UBA over the supposed scientific consensus of dangerous climate damage caused by CO2 is ABSURD, BASELESS AND FALSE!

Our Assessment of the UBA Pamphlet

Das UBA is amiss at every level in its climate pamphlet. In view of the politically motivated propagation of anthropogenically caused climate change, the UBA has denied every factual explanation. It has one-sidedly affiliated itself with the prophets of climate catastrophe, who derive their prognoses using fictional models results, and done so without any stringent argumentation.

The UBA violates the Ockham Law Principle where the hypothesis of fewest assumptions should be selected, the paradigm of modern natural science. The AGW hypothesis is namely not necessary for explaining the climate development after the start of industrialization. All climate changes of the last 150 years are within the range of natural fluctuations of at least the last 2000 years. Thus applying the Ockham law principle, the AGW hypothesis cannot be alone at the center. Only more future research can tell us what can be behind climate change.

With the publication of such dubious quality and its forcing of opinion upon others, the UBA will not succeed in ending the skepticism on ‘climate change’. Unintended by the UBA, its pamphlet has indeed lead a part of the media to inform the public of the danger to our democracy arising from the suppression of politically undesired dissenting views and from the denigration of scientists who have a different opinion, and have made it clear they will no longer stand for it.

We hope that our rebuttal to the UBA will bring more seriousness and scientific honesty to the climate debate. Not only the UBA is available for factual discussion and for questions, but EIKE as well.

Prof. Dr. Horst-Joachim Lüdecke
Klaus-Eckart Puls
Prof. Dr. Carl-Otto Weiss
Prof. Dr. Friedrich-Karl Ewert
Dr. Rainer Link
Michael Limburg
Dr. Wolfgang Burkel
Dr. Siegfried Dittrich

Jena, Germany, May 2013

 

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

15 responses to “European Institute For Climate And Energy Calls Claims Of Climate Consensus “Absurd, Baseless And False””

  1. igor

    There is no such thing as “Ockham law” !!!

    It is a philosophical principle,irrelevant to science.

    “Ockham” principle judges whether a hypothesis looks neat and cute and simple, while science judges a hypothesis SOLELY whether it’s in line with experiment/observations.

    Those Prof.s and Dr.s just signed affidavit that they are idiots!

    Or, may be they want to undermine efforts to reign in AGW CO2 hysteria by providing invalid agruments…

    1. DirkH

      I think this is more an issue of translation and formulation than what you call an affidavit that they are idiots. So to inform later readers, here is the German original.
      “Das UBA verstößt gegen das Ockham-Gesetz der Hypothesensparsamkeit, dem Paradigma moderner Naturwissenschaft. Die AGW-Hypothese ist zur Erklärung der Klimaentwicklung nach der Industrialisierung nämlich nicht erforderlich. Alle Klimaänderungen der letzten 150 Jahre liegen im bekannten Bereich natürlicher Fluktuationen der (zumindest) letzten 2000 Jahre. Die AGW-Hypothese darf daher gemäß dem immer noch gültigen Ockham-Paradigma nicht alleine in den Mittelpunkt gestellt werden. Sie ist nur eine unter anderen Hypothesen. Welche zutrifft, kann nur zukünftige Forschung entscheiden. ”
      Judge for yourself. I would take issue with the word “Ockham-Gesetz” – Law of Occam – but maybe it is common usage in German; in English I read “principle of Occam” most of the times it is used. Two sentences later they call it a “paradigm” instead of a law; which is more appropriate, yet I would still prefer “principle”.

      I agree that it is bad writing.

    2. Mindert Eiting

      Ockham’s principle is discussed on various places by Karl Popper. It is a principle making hypotheses better testable. It is not a law because nothing in nature tells us that things are as simple as we want. Let’s call it the principle that we should not introduce assumptions unless we are forced to do so. I had no difficulties with EIKE as I understood what they wanted to say.

  2. igor

    P Gosselin said:

    never trade off clarity for gimmicks

    Be careful, P Gosselin,

    FYI: 100 years ago science DID trade clarity (of classic physics) for gimmicks (of quantum theory and relativity).

    Your golden rule is not applicable to real science.

  3. WillR

    Here is how Ontario enforces the Consensus:
    http://ontario-wind-resistance.org/2013/06/05/middlesex-woman-named-in-nextera-lawsuit/

    Just get the wind companies and the courts to grind people down!

    CHeers!

  4. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup | Watts Up With That?
  5. Ed Caryl

    The phrase I have a problem with is “climate change.” If the variability during the last 150 years are within the range of variability during the last 2000, then calling it “climate change” as if it were some permanent change of condition, is fundamentally misleading, picked only for propaganda purposes. Climate Change does not exist. Occasional extremes are normal. I will not get excited even if ice a kilometer high begins to flow down the Hudson River, because that happens about 80% of the time (over the last million years). And Man had nothing to do with it.

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