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.
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
LawPrinciple 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 Ockhamlawprinciple, 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 DittrichJena, Germany, May 2013
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…
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.
I will change it to “principle”. But “Gesetz” means “law”.
Honestly I think there exists far better ways to describe what is going on. I myself can only vaguely remember something about Ockam, and I seriously doubt even 10% of the population know the law, or principle or paradigm, or razor, or whatever the hell it is. There are much clearer ways of to get the point across.
Your translation is as good as it gets. It’s the German original that is in my eyes imprecise.
Thanks Igor,
See my response to Dirk. Part of the problem is that I should have researched Ockam, or Occam, more in order to produce a better translation. Anyway, the underlying message remains the same: Claims of consensus are pure hogwash.
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.
For me the golden rule in writing is: never trade off clarity for gimmicks.
P Gosselin,
Unfortunately, your rule is not applicable to science.
For example, 100 years ago science DID trade clarity (of classical physics) for gimmicks (of quantum mechanics/relativity).
In the end, when we get working physical climate models, I bet, it will be nothing like clarity of today’s (lunatic) CO2 on/off switch, but will be messy and gimmicky like, say, dynamics of fluids today.
AGAIN: scientific theory is ONLY judged by experiment/observations. It DOESN’T matter if it’s clear or gimmicky or whatever.
I was talking about tips for better writing. But of course you are right about observatiuons and experiment. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/06/06/climate-modeling-epic-fail-spencer-the-day-of-reckoning-has-arrived/
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.
And what has that got to do with writing tips? You’re way out in left field, Igor.
sorry for double posting.
on your site when i post second and later comments, they seemingly disappears.
to show up later as it seems.
i did not see your post about how you use your rule.
sorry again
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!
[…] https://notrickszone.com/2013/06/05/european-institute-for-climate-and-energy-calls-claims-of-climate… […]
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.