From “Jewish Science” To “Denier Science”: Copernicus Charade Is Latest Example Of German Intolerance To Alternative Climate Science Explanations

A number of websites have thoroughly and deservedly thrashed Germany-based Copernicus Publications for terminating one of its scientific journals: Pattern Recognition in Physics. Read here, here and here.

The reason for terminating the entire publication was an IPCC skeptical paper titled: General conclusions regarding the planetary–solar–terrestrial interaction, authored by an impressive roster of leading maverick scientists.

A Copernicus Publications statement claims that “scientific dispute is controversial and should allow contradictory opinions which can then be discussed within the scientific community“. But unfortunately anything that disagrees with the IPCC isn’t going to be tolerated – data and observations be damned. Clearly the dogmatism of IPCC global warming science rules at Copernicus Publications. The director of Copernicus Publications, Thies Martin Rasmussen, appears to be simply too young, naïve and closed-minded to know better and is thus intolerant to alternative explanations.

Growing German intolerance

The move by Copernicus Publications should not come as a surprise, though. The move simply once again confirms a growing intolerance to climate science dissent that we’ve been seeing in Germany over the past years. Today dissent is being met with increasing scorn and viciousness. Those who express dissent are routinely singled out and marginalized as heretics. And the more the data refute anthropogenic global warming, the more intense the dogmatists become.

From “Jewish science” to “denier science”

Unfortunately, Göttingen, where the publisher is based, has a long history of caving in to this brand of intolerance and remaining silent when things get out of hand. Jacob Bronowski in Knowledge or Certainty reminds us of a dark period in Gottingen’s history:

It’s a major tragedy that in my lifetime and yours, that here in Göttingen scientists were refining to the most exquisite position of the principle of tolerance and turning their backs on the fact that all around them tolerance was crashing to the ground beyond repair.”

The same is true today in Germany’s climate science community. The move by Copernicus Publications once again represents how science and debate can be suppressed by arrogance and elitism. Albert Einstein was also attacked by German scientists, who called his theories “Jewish science”. The only difference today is that we’ve gone from “Jewish science” to “denier science”. Today’s skeptical scientists in Germany, and elsewhere, are held with an eerily similar contempt as Einstein was held in the Nazi days. Some have already left the country.

Even lukewarmers get disinvited

One particular glaring example occurred two years ago, when lukewarmer Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt, co-author of the then newly released IPCC critical book “Die kalte Sonne“, was abruptly disinvited by administrators from giving a speech at the University of Osnabrück after immense pressure was applied on the university and threats were made by powerful, radical green forces.

Germany’s Environment Ministry goes after skeptics

Last year Germany’s Ministry of Environment, a major federal government body, published and distributed a 123-page pamphlet that singled out, publicly named, isolated and discredited leading German climate dissenters, warning the public not to listen to them. Jewish journalist Henryk Broder wrote that the move by the Ministry of Environment smacked of tactics used by the Reichskulturkammer, read here.

Move by Copernicus defends anti-science and dogma

With its rash, poorly contemplated move, Copernicus Publications has turned its back on the principles of open scientific debate and demonstrated an obstinate insistence that certainty exists in the complex science of climate change. The publisher is not defending science at all, rather he is defending anti-science and the preservation of dogma. With it’s move Copernicus Publications is stymying debate and dissent.

The authors of the controversial paper General conclusions regarding the planetary–solar–terrestrial interaction, are among the most esteemed in the field, and thus cannot be dismissed as crackpots. Collectively they have published hundreds of scientific papers, an immense contribution to the field and expansion of knowledge. Their only “wrongdoing”? They refuse to tag along with the fashionable dogma of anthropogenic global warming. They insist of remaining scientitific, i.e. being critical and skeptical of claims that cannot be supported by observations.

Copernicus Publications has made a terrible, cowardly and narrow-minded mistake that will become a huge embarrassment to Germany’s scientific community and spirit of open discussion. Reversing this grotesque decision and apologizing to the scientists is in order.


48 responses to “From “Jewish Science” To “Denier Science”: Copernicus Charade Is Latest Example Of German Intolerance To Alternative Climate Science Explanations”

  1. William Connolley

    > From “Jewish science” to “denier science”

    Godwin! You lose.

    > The authors of the controversial paper General conclusions regarding the planetary–solar–terrestrial interaction, are among the most esteemed in the field,

    No they aren’t. They wouldn’t be publishing in a journal no-one had heard of if they were.

    > and thus cannot be dismissed as crackpots

    Of course they can be. Everyone has.

    1. DirkH

      William Connolley
      18. Januar 2014 at 18:24 | Permalink | Reply
      “Godwin! You lose.”

      “Godwin’s law” applies to insulting others with Nahzie analogies as debates deteriorate. It doesn’t apply to valid historical comparisons. Connolley is attempting to abuse Godwin’s Law to stifle a valid debate and shows his totalitarian colors.

      With his first 4 words on the thread; that must be a record, douchebag.

  2. Ric Werme

    “Jacob Bronowski in Knowledge or Certainty …”

    Otherwise know as the finest hour on television.

    I bought my first color TV in 1974 to watch the “The Ascent of Man” on PBS in the states. (It was on the BBC in 1973.)

    I bought the DVD set for Christmas last year. Still good and so much better than Sagan’s Cosmos.

  3. Stephen Richards

    Never did trust grown men with pony tails ….. Oh my mistake …. not a grown man.

  4. Robin Pittwood

    Haha. Thought I’d check out Wiki on Copernicus.
    “In 1616, the Roman Inquisition’s consultants gave their assessment of the proposition that the sun is immobile and at the center of the universe and that the Earth moves around it, judging both to be “foolish and absurd in philosophy” and that the first was “formally heretical” while the second was “at least erroneous in faith”.
    This assessment led to Copernicus’s De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium to be placed on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum – the Index of Forbidden Books.”
    More irony to add to the fun.

  5. Graeme No.3

    Connolley was a co-founder of RealScience?

    I was persuaded by an article on that site into becoming a sceptic.
    I knew a bit more than the average person about it, so recognised its omissions and distortions, and outright false statements. Then I realised what THE SCIENCE was.

    If Connolley has been banned from commenting on several sites, it is because of his appalling rudeness. JoNova is surprisingly tolerant, although she banned another troll this month when he was snipped for repetition (and rudeness) and complained about censorship. That after 1117 entries, mostly repetitious.

    1. DirkH

      “Connolley was a co-founder of RealScience?”

  6. Graeme No.3

    Thanks for that.
    I don’t recall RealClimate, but I think that makes me part of the 97% majority.

    1. DirkH

      Realclimate has been founded with help from Fenton communications, the leftist scare fabricators; and is being run from NASA’s GISS offices by Gavin Schmidt. He censors questions about the Fenton link.

  7. JP

    It is time for Germany to restore the great tradition of German science of the nineteenth century. The greatest work in electricity was done by Wilhelm Eduard Weber, most of whose writings have never been translated out of the original German. James Clerk Maxwell referred to Weber’s work, and made a parody of it with his equations, which ignore certain key aspects observable by experiment.

    A historical precedent for this kind of revival was the revival of the Bach’s Matthäuspassion by Felix Mendelssohn; the piece had not been played in over 100 years.

    1. cementafriend

      JP what about Prandtl, Nusselt, Grashof and Schmidt all of whom have relevent dimensionless numbers named after them. These engineers not only understood thermodynamics but were Professors at important universities.
      You could add some other great engineers such as Nicolaus Otto and Rudolph Diesel who would be turning in their graves at the thought of stupid proponents of AGW at PIK.

      1. JP

        Cement-a-friend, thank you for telling me about these great engineers, whom I did not know about. I note that Ernst Heinrich Wilhelm Schmidt does not even have an English-language Wikipedia page. And I think that this is telling, and entirely consistent with the point I was trying to make in the previous comment.

        There has been a lot of great German science and engineering, much of which — not all, of course — has been simply left as dusty tomes in libraries in their original Latin or German. I give three examples:

        1. One of Kepler’s most important works is his Harmonices Mundi, in which he presents his model of the solar system. In English, only Chapter 5, presenting the three laws, was available. It was not until 1997 that E.J. Aiton, A.M. Duncan and J.V. Field published an English translation with commentary of the full work.

        2. Leibniz in 1676 was in Paris preparing a Latin text which would form the basis for the infinitesimal calculus, hoping to join the French Académie des Sciences. He was forced to leave Paris, and the text did not show up again until 1993! Because of the work of Marc Parmentier, we now have a good side-by-side Latin-French parallel text:

        3. The vast majority of Eduard Wilhelm Weber’s work is not available outside of German.

        Of course, what I write about German science is applicable elsewhere. For example, Augustin Fresnel’s work on electricity, in French, still has no official English translation. André Assiz just published a Portuguese translation.

        The most insidious form of colonization is the colonization of the mind.

        1. JP

          When I wrote Augustin Fresnel, I meant to write André-Marie Ampère.
          Don’t publish before breakfast!

    2. DirkH

      JP, do you have more about this, i.e. is there a specific observable phenomenon that Weber explains and that Maxwell can’t?

      1. JP

        DirkH, I am by no means an expert, but I will try to answer. The most complete presentation that I know of is “Weber’s Electrodynamics” by André Koch Torres Assis, Dordrecht: Kluwer, 1994, ISBN 0-7923-3137-0, which unfortunately costs a fortune.

        The most important distinction about Weber’s electrodynamics is that it respects Newton’s third law of equal action and reaction, which Maxwell’s electromagnetic equations do not. Weber’s force between two charges takes into account the radial velocities and accelerations between the two charges.

        From the above book, p. 167: “So we have a distinguishing feature between theories which predict a force on a stationary charge due to a stationary and neutral conductor carrying a constant current, and theories which do not predict this force. In the first class we have, for instance, the forces of Weber, Riemann and Gauss. All the theories predict a second-order force of the order V²_D / c² where usually we have V²_D / c² \approx 10^{-20}, which is a very small effect.

        p.168: The best experiment known to us devised to detect such an effect is due to Edwards et al. (Edwards, Kenyon and Lemon, 1976). They measured a potential difference associated to this motional electric field and found a value compatible to the order of magnitude predicted by Weber’s electrodynamics. Moreover, they concluded that the field was radical and pointing to the current, irrespective of the direction of the current, and found it proportional to the square of the current. Despite all these positive evidences in agreement with Weber’s electrodynamics the experiment cannot be said to be decisive and more experimental researches are necessary before reaching a conclusion.

        1. DirkH

          Thank you!

  8. Green Sand

    Congrats Powerful Pierre!

    A visitation from “Wild Bill Hiki Wiki” himself!

    It appears you were not alone in attracting the attention of the “Wayward Wiki Wizard” though it does appear his present MO is “off piste”. There is no reference to “scattergun approach” on Wiki? Maybe somebody censor.. oops, deleted it?

    We live in interesting times!

    I really do appreciate “Wild Bill Hiki Wiki” with his every contribution ensuring that more and more people realising they have to think for themselves.

    Yo, Powerful! Well done!

  9. John F. Hultquist

    Two of the authors are Nils-Axel Mörner and Willie Soon. I hold these 2 in high regard. Some of the others I know less about and sometimes take issue with what they have done. Others I don’t know. With wild-William’s endorsement henceforth I will hold them all in higher regard.

  10. cementafriend

    Strange, no one here on a German site has mentioned that it is likelyhood that Schellnhuber, who has green socialist leanings (one could mention a bit about his lack of understand of engineering science but then there is a need for decorum), had something to do with the publication shut down. Did not he also have something (as an advisor) to do with the Ministry of Environment Publication mentioned above. If Germany wants to continue to prosper, industry backed by the people should be getting rid of Schellnhuber and PIK.
    ein(in)freund(in)Zementieren (did I get that right?)

    1. DirkH

      Einen Freund einzementieren.

      1. cementafriend

        DirkH my German is not great but I do not think your words capture the double meaning. I mean cement in a friendly way for people I respect

        1. DirkH

          Oh, never occured to me. Can’t easily be expressed in German I fear.

        2. DirkH

          “Eine Freundschaft verfestigen”; but the “cementing” gets lost…

      2. JP

        The name of the journal for the Italian Physical Society is Nuovo Cimento.

        1. cementafriend

          I did not know that- thanks.
          I wonder how they came to the name? Could it be uniting or joining or could Il Nouvo Cimento be the The New Unity. I have a paper by an Italian (Adolfo Giurfa) titled “The Unified Field Explained” which covers gravity, electric fields and magetic fields. The latter actually involves the subject of the post. -patterns, Fibonaci etc

          1. JP

            Cement-a-friend, here is a quote from:

            Per la Scienza, per la patria: Carlo Matteucci, fisico e politico nel Resorgimento italiano, by Fabio Toscano, Milano: Sironi Editore, ISBN 978-88-518-0137-3, page 186.

            Matteucci pubblicò queste innumerevoli memorie sui principali giornali scientifici europei, sopratutto francesi, ma anche sulla rivista Il Nuovo Cimento, da lui stesso fondata nel 1855 insieme a Raffaele Piria e attestatasi subito come il più importante periodico scientifico italiano. La prestigiosa rivista — divenuta nel 1897 l’organo della Società Italiana di Fisica e tuttora pubblicata — costituiva la continuazione de Il Cimento, giornale fondato dagli stessi Matteucci e Piria nel 1844, e chiuso nel 1847. Il nome dei due periodici era tratto dalla storico Accademia del Cimento, costituita a Firenze nel 1657 per volere del granduca Ferdinando II de’ Medici e di suo fratello, il principe Leopoldo, la cui ultima adunanza si era tenuta il 5 marzo 1667.

            The Accademie del Cimento (1657-1667) is called in English the Academy of Experiment. (In Italian, cement is cemento, not cimento.) The journals Il Cimento (1844-1847) and Il Nuovo Cimento (1855-present) were named by Matteucci and Piria in honor of the original Academy. See

          2. cementafriend

            Managed to get the gist of quote although my Italian is zero (but I did French and Latin at school, some German later)
            One lives and learns.
            However, not so sure about your comment about cement. The google translation of ciment from Italian to English is cement and to German is zement. French word for the English cement is ciment. I think the word comes from the Latin opus caementicium
            The translation of cimento from Italian to gives ordeal (and lesser- risk), while to German gives Tortur (and lesser- probe)
            Wiki does mention the Accademia del Cimento as the Accademy of Experimentation.
            In a round about way the history of Accademia del Cimento has a relevance to this post as it was started to standardise experimentation and measurement.
            Maybe I could say cimentoamico

    2. DirkH

      Göttingen is so politically correct they don’t need a Schellnhuber. It’s a kind of German Berkeley.

  11. A C Osborn

    Note that WUWT has not stopped Connolley from posting at all, the posters over there have been giving PRP guys a really hard time, even accsuing them of “Malpractice”.

  12. AlecM

    I wrote this in reply to Connolley on JoNova:

    “But, William, the so-called IPCC theory, originating with Sagan then Houghton and finally Trenberth, called the Enhanced Greenhouse Effect, assumes that the Earth’s surface emits real IR energy to the atmosphere as if it were an isolated black body in Space in radiative equilibrium with its zero point energy. Then it assumes that the atmosphere radiates heat energy to the warmer surface.

    No competent scientist or engineer accepts this to be true. Unfortunately, Meteorology now Climate Alchemy imagine it is. The reason is that they think the output of a pyrgeometer is a real energy flux when it is a Radiation Field, the aforesaid hypothetical black body flux to Space. Only the difference of RFs drives radiative energy transport.

    This explains the failure of the IPCC models to account for 17 year 4 months no warming, a period of 1.02 Santers. They are broken from the very start in respect of heat generation and transport. Closing down journals which question your illogical religion won’t stop it being based on science fiction. What’s more, it will not stop the reaction by real scientists and engineers to this form of Gresham’s Law applied to Science, bad physics driving out good.

    Just be a good boy and accept that because you and your mates have failed to be professional and/or were taught incorrect physics, you can’t throw all the toys out of the pram. Very soon, if you continue to behave like a spoilt brats, which is what you lot are, your trousers will metaphorically be taken down and you will be belted out of any contact with real science to punish you and your ilk.

    Be off with you and leave the field to the honest majority.”

  13. Oliver K. Manuel

    Mankind “shot himself in the foot” by corrupting the basic principles of the scientific method for short-term advantage.

    “Fuel poverty” became a problem for humans after the Second World War.

    Textbooks of physics and chemistry continue to promote misinformation about nuclear energy that prevents mankind from safely harvestingy and using this source of energy to meet future energy needs, as noted here:

    Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA Principal
    Investigator for Apollo

  14. Joseph A Olson

    Dr Scafetta’s work is a validation of the 1914 Milankovitch “Astronomical Theory of Ice Ages” and due to better data and computing power, is an amplification of this obvious physical fact.

    Dr Claes Johnson PhD Applied Mathematics was censored by the Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm for publishing math formulas used by engineers in Thermodynamics for a century because they conflicted with IPCC orthodoxy. This described in “Carbon Warfare rules of Engagement” at Canada Free Press.

    When scientist are NOT allowed to discuss proven mathematical formulas and proven astronomical alignments, then we no longer have science, we have OCCULTISM.

    [thanks for the WC snub….he’s insufferable an elitist]

  15. clipe

    Edward Greisch @RealClimate says:
    19 Jan 2014 at 11:54 AM

    “A page search of the first 49 comments + the article find zero occurrences of the word “food” and zero occurrences of the word “famine.”

    Bravo for 24 Donald Brown, but it isn’t about trains. If you want to scare them, why are there zero mentions of either global famine or food so far?

    Most people would like winter to go away. GW seems like a good idea. WE have to explain why no more winter is not a good idea. It isn’t that hard. No more winter means no more food. The connection is not obvious. GCMs don’t tell us that. You have to look at Aiguo Dai’s work, which is not about GCMs.

    So you have to show us GCMs predicting no more food.”

  16. Brad Keyes

    William Connolley:

    “Godwin! You lose.”

    Mike Godwin unleashed his meme 24 years ago because:

    “I wanted folks who glibly compared someone else to Hitler or to Nazis to think a bit harder about the Holocaust.”

    Apparently our ponytailed friend thinks Godwin said:

    “I wanted folks to glibly avoid thinking, reading or hearing about Hitler, the Nazis or the Holocaust.”

    A perfectly understandable mistake!

    It could happen to anyone.

    Well, not anyone, as such—but anyone as odious as WilConPedia.

    It’s hardly surprising that a petty, lazy solipsist would mentally mutilate Godwin’s idea as WC has done, spitting out a morally bankrupt and anti-intellectual excuse to Gallop headlong from historic reality.

    What I’d like to throw open for discussion is:

    Is there a term for people who resort to this shitwitted manoeuvre*?

    Shoah dismissers? Genocide distractionists? Anti-Semitism apathists? Nazi-neutrals? Hitler trivialists? Auschwitz agnotologists? Judenhass yawners? Weaselthals?

    Suggestions welcome,


    * The choice “Holocaust deniers” is, of course, unacceptable. As a number of human rights tribunals have agreed, to label a Holocaust evasionist a “denier” is to deliberately and offensively invoke the anathema of “climate change denier.” Shoah-shrugging is wrong, but let’s not go overboard! There’s no need to demonize WC and his history-belittling, Godwin-bastardizing ilk.

    1. DirkH

      “Is there a term for people who resort to this shitwitted manoeuvre*? ”

      Many – “Leftist”, “Gramsciite”, “Cultural Marxist”.

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