A reader/professor has sent me an internal memo he recently obtained from a meteorologist and member of the Deutsche Meteorologische Gesellschaft [German Meteorological Society], abbreviated as DMG. Clearly grave concern is emerging over a large swath of the broader German meteorological-climatological community in the wake of the Lennart Bengtsson witchhunt.
The memo was authored by a group of dissenting DMG-member meteorologists and intended to be published in the DMG reports, but never saw the light of day.
It reveals a growing and widespread worry over the suppression of scientific views among German Meteorological Society members. One of the authors of the memorandum wrote an e-mail to the reader who provided the copy to me. He writes:
A circle of mostly older colleagues of the Free University of Berlin, who very much reject the tone one finds in today’s field of climatology, has asked me to draft a memorandum on the subject and to publish it in the Reports of the German Meteorological Society. Shortened by a half and totally watered down, the memorandum appeared in the last issue. I now take the liberty to bring the original version to your attention.
Greetings and cordial asscoication yours, ************”
I’ve deleted the name to protect the source. What follows is the original, un-watered down version of the memorandum – translated in English:
On the situation in the field of meteorology-climatology
Based on observations made for quite some time, and due to the current occasion (IPCC 5), colleagues in the meteorological circles have been witnessing with worry how certain developments are becoming cemented into their scientific fields (foremost climatology) which from a scientific point of view simply cannot be accepted and do not comply to their professional ethics.
These developments involve first of all something in the lines of a democratization of science: Everyone is allowed and should have a say in it. In meteorology-climatology every one includes a highly visible army of organized, little known persons; in Germany this is almost the entire public! The changes that have taken place in science as a result have in our opinion (and that of others) led to very negative impacts on the quality standards of science. For example expressed and disseminated meteorological flaws can hardly be contained and cannot be corrected publicly at all. Yet our meteorological scientists do not speak up.
And it is hardly perceived that behind these developments – admittedly – there is also a political objective for the transformation of society, whether one wants it or not. Currently global sustainable change is the same thing.
Meteorology-climatology is playing a decisive role this political action. The – alleged – CO2 consensus here is serving as a lever within the group that consists of known colleagues who deal with climate, but also consists of a large number of climate bureaucrats coming from every imaginable social field. Together both groups consensually have introduced a binding dogma into this science (which is something that is totally alien to the notion of science).
This is not the first time such a thing has happened in the history of science. Here although this dogma came about through democratic paths (through consensus vote?), in the end it is almost dictatorial. Doubting the dogma is de facto forbidden and is punished? In climatology the doubt is about datasets or results taken over from hardly verifiable model simulations from other parties. Until recently this kind of science was considered conquered – thanks to our much celebrated liberty/democratic foundation!
The constant claim of consensus among so-called climatologists, who relentlessly claim man-made climate change has been established, attempts to impose by authority an end to the debate on fundamental questions. Thus a large number of scientist colleagues end up being ostracized, and thus could lead to the prompting of actions that would have considerable burdens on the well-intended society. Such a regulation and the resulting incalculable consequence it would have for all people would in our view – and that of many meteorological specialists we know – be irresponsible with respect to our real level of knowledge in this field.
We must desire in general, and also in our scientific field, a return to an international scientific practice that is free of pre-conceptions and cemented biased opinions. This must include the freedom of presenting (naturally well-founded) scientific results, even when these do not correspond to the mainstream (e.g. the IPCC requirements).
Account of the opinion of a group of responsible minded members of the ZV Berlin -Brandenburg of the German Meteorological Society
On the behalf of others, Prof. Dr. **************, Professor of Theoretical Meteorology of the ######################). 28 December 2013
Again I’ve redacted the author’s name.
Clearly a number of scientists and experts in Germany worry that dogma has engulfed meteorology and climatology, and that history risks repeating itself.