Yesterday Munich-based national online daily Süddeutsche Zeitung (SDZ) here published a report on the heavy (unfair) attacks by skeptics on climate scientists, who see themselves as innocent victims.Tthe attacks, the SDZ writes, are stemming from “lobby groups of the oil and coal industry and by private people who have networked themselves together.”
Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, the SDZ article is totally one-sided, adversarial against the skeptics and ideological. It has nothing to do with balanced journalism. The story is wholly designed to marginalize the legitimate and forceful criticism of climate science by renowned. The skepticism evidently is substantial enough to have a major German newspaper liked he SDZ gripe about it and feel compelled enough to chase down opinions from sympathetic ‘experts’ all over the world.
Overall the SDZ portrays climate science skeptics as clandestinely funded attack groups who are driven by greed, self-interest or who are operatimng on behalf of the interests of the fossil fuels and coal industry.
The attacks are so vicious, the SDZ wants its readers to believe, that now “historians and philosophers are taking a look at the phenomenon“. The center-left daily describes an environment where criticism from skeptics is hostile, is under the belt, does not fulfill scientific norms and that it is possibly “impeding the progress of science“. The SDZ cites, for example, Anna Leuschner of the University of Hannover, who is quoted as saying “the difference between helpful and damaging criticism could emerge when the progress of science is intentionally obstructed“. This is a thinly veiled plea for a state crackdown on climate science scrutiny and skepticism.
Just how bad are the skeptics? The SDZ goes on to describe how Michael Mann views himself as the victim of a “McCarthy-like” campaign, orchestrated by “a well-financed and well-tuned attack on science” and that Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia even received “death threats” and had “thoughts of suicide” after his e-mails “were stolen and released to the public.”
“Criteria for damaging criticism”
The SDZ describes a recently held conference held in Karlsruhe among “philosophers and ethicists from USA, England and Germany who discussed whether there are criteria for damaging criticism.” The aim of the conference of course was how best to deal with skeptics. Jochem Marotzke, of the German Max-Planck-Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, says that “skeptic” is an impermissible term to describe the persons who are spreading doubt over climate science and wishes he could find a strategy to get the word skeptic back out of their hands, according to the SDZ.
The SDZ also writes that Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber, Director of he Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, failed to get the label denier to stick for people whom he calls “radical climate protection opponents“.
The thrust of the SDZ article of course is to portray the skeptics as a dangerous threat to scientific progress and thus ought to be reined in by the power of the state. Afterall, how can skepticism be allowed when the science is so settled?
In the article the SDZ portrays a situation where big industry is the greedy evil behind all the climate science skepticism and its successful campaign to seed doubts over the science. The Munich-based center-left daily writes: “Indeed instead of fighting politically, the lobby groups are staging supposed controversy within the science.”
One major problem with the SDZ article is that it fails to name a single group or person guilty of all the accusations it launches, let alone provide any evidence. To shore up the accusations, the SSZ merely cites vague claims made by the usual alarmist propagandists, such as Naomi Oreskes, Stephan Lewandowsky and even Skeptical Science. Perhaps this was done to avoid slander lawsuits.
The main thrust of the SDZ article is on how to deal with skeptics. How seriously should their objections to the science be taken? Refusing to listen to their objections and insisting the science is settled “may come across as appearing arrogant, and thus serve to play into the hands of the skeptics,” Loescher warns.
In the article the SDZ especially takes aim at “conservative American think tanks”, not naming a single one of them, and complains that skepticism is prominent especially in English speaking countries [which have a more balanced press].
In the end, the SDZ writes that outcome of Paris will not be decided based on science, but rather on politics.
We have rather solid evidence, of those think tanks and oil companies shifting the debate.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/11/18/1509433112.abstract
“Drawing on large-scale computational data and methods, this research demonstrates how polarization efforts are influenced by a patterned network of political and financial actors. ”
Well, warmunists seem to know exactly ONE trick: making a computer talk for them. And then call it “solid evidence”.
In what prison cell of the warmunist crime complex are you held, sod?
Our warmunist number-fiddler finds that corporate funding indicates more skeptical results. Meaning that government funding indicates more warmunist results. Hu hu. How surprising – given the treasure trove of taxation the Total State can gain with eco scares.
Looks like a research result from the department of the obvious.
Hope he didn’t break a sweat while collecting his taxpayer funded paycheck.
The increasing desperation of the government-warmunist totalitarians for increased taxation and total plunder of the energy sector indicates widespread systemic breakdown. Panic seems to begin: TMS2 growth is back to levels last seen in 2008.
The warmunist parasite has increased societal inefficiency so much that the Leviathan is starving. Too many accomplices to feed, and a ubiquitious Going Galt of the productive sector as regulatory shackles make all innovation pointless.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-24/malinvestment-lunacy-exposed-us-money-supply-growth-finally-begins-crack
Death by malinvestment – the symbol the 130m Wind Turbine – the Fetish of Warmunism. It’s output not energy but subsidy.
You daily provide us solid evidence that you will make a good Serf, sod.
The most devastating data that generates skeptical claims on projected Climate Catastrophe come from government sources with no influence of private funding. They would be a) Two thousand ARGO sea-surface buoys, a project which is underwritten by 30 governments… it’s not run or funded by the oil industry… the US agency NOAA has seen fit to alter the ARGO data to erase the extended Pause or Hiatus in global warming; b) the UAH (U of Alabama) and RSS centers which process satellite data that infers temperatures in the lower troposphere… both show an extended hiatus, and since 2000 slight cooling in the atmosphere. The satellite and balloon data also contradict the central predictions of an atmospheric “hot spot”.
These data and similar types have demolished the case for Climate Hysteria, as well as the fact that there has been no increase in Extreme Weather since 1900.
Trying to scapegoat people who proliferate the government generated data shows the wickedness and perfidy of this movement and their enablers in the MSM.
In any case, their antics won’t affect the fact that the world has already rejected the Green Alarmism of COP21 in Paris; the US senate will veto damaging measures to destroy the US economy; and poll after poll shows the population doesn’t care about Global Warming and certainly opposes any new measures to decarbomnize the economy.
Correction. That should read almost 4,000 ARGO buoys providing aboutv 50% monitoring of the oceans.
Here’s a quote from the author of that paper
“Environmental conflict is not ultimately about scientific true and false, but about moral right and wrong. It is not about the facts themselves, but what makes the facts meaningful. There are important moral and spiritual bases of conflict that observers and participants in the conflict have ignored, muted or simply misunderstood.”
– Justin Farrell, Assistant Professor of Sociology at Yale University
link here: http://blogs.worldbank.org/publicsphere/quote-week-justin-farrell
So, here’s a guy who has made “Noble Cause Corruption” his religion writing a paper just in time for Paris.
bla, bla, bla,
Again, this is sophist strategy. Why don’t you name a skeptical website for which there is evidence of funding by oil and/or coal interests? In fact, putting it this way, at some level (I’m getting a bit Freudian here) you have to know that this charge is nonsensical.
“The center-left daily describes an environment where criticism from skeptics is hostile, is under the belt, does not fulfill scientific norms and that it is possibly “impeding the progress of science“.”
Too funny. Warmunist “scientists” NEVER make “progress”. They keep claiming that water vapor will turn the planet into Venus (after the positive water vapor feedback got kickstarted by a little bit of CO2).
That’s what their computer programs are written to tell, so that’s what they do. They won’t change their programs because that would mean work – and why work when you can collect a paycheck without.
It must actually be kinda frustrating for the poor idiot kids who study in their institutes. But then again, being an idiot is by definition frustrating.
Quite so.
In Australia, a recent Press Council ruling came down to argument over two words.
The Australian Press Council has considered a complaint by Andrew Robertson about an opinion article by Tim Blair in The Daily Telegraph on 6 June 2011, headed Simple way to spit on the dummies.
Mr Robertson complained that the concluding section of the article implied climate scientists deserved the abuse and death threats they were allegedly receiving by email and, by excusing those emails, incited violent action against the scientists.
The article continued:
Well, that’s not the message we got from their climate rap. ‘Perhaps,’ replied [a named reader], ‘they shouldn’t call people motherf…ers if they don’t want to fight.’
Quite so.
The newspaper said that the words “Quite so” were meant to imply that the scientists should not be abusive themselves if they did not want to receive abuse.
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/quite_so/
Here is the song/video:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/05/10/climate-scientist-rap-from-hun/
Copy of today’s email to over 100 Australian politicians …
Dear PM and politicians
You need to take this very seriously because, sooner or later I predict that the Government will be taken to task because of their ongoing promulgation of the largest hoax the world has ever seen.
CARBON DIOXIDE CANNOT AND DOES NOT WARM EARTH’S SURFACE.
The “science” that supposedly proves it does is nothing but fictitious, fiddled physics that is totally incorrect. I can say that as a result of thousands of hours of research and over 50 years of helping undergraduates in physics. This new blog explains why in terms you can understand even without a background in physics.
https://itsnotco2.wordpress.com
“… Paris will not be decided based on science, but rather on politics.”
Quite so.
[Tim Blair invited his readers to use “quite so” in as many different ways as they could think of, and often. Folks obliged and there were many good ones.]
“In the end, the SDZ writes that outcome of Paris will not be decided based on science, but rather on politics.”
Which is quite true..so we are all in agreement 😉
<>
Quite so,
This is, these are classic Alinskyite tactics, “we can’t beat them [skeptics] by arguing facts and science, therefore, we divide, we harass, we attack the naysayers with personal vindictiveness and spiteful hate, always – with hate”.
They [alarmists], lost the argument more or less straight away and you know when politics gets down and very personal – you’re winning the argument by a distance and then some.
“Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, the SDZ article is totally one-sided, adversarial against the skeptics and ideological.”
Sorry PG, this above quote was intended to headline my [previous] post feel free to edit;-)
Just look how stupidly cautious the magazine “Die Zeit” is reporting the fact, that 2015 will be the hottest ever measured in modern times and will break the 1°C mark.
http://www.zeit.de/wissen/umwelt/2015-11/meteorologie-un-2015-temperatur
This is the chilling effect of “sceptic” pressure. Basically the truth can barely be told any longer.
I think you’ve made a mistake. Surely you mean: “Basically lies can barely be told any longer.” Which is why skeptics are so vital for the progress of science.
“Just look how stupidly cautious the magazine “Die Zeit” is reporting the fact, that 2015 will be the hottest ever measured in modern times and will break the 1°C mark. ”
Oh those poor ZEIT Maoists.
Regarding the claim of “HOTTEST EVUH”; INTERESTINGLY rising CO2 has made surface temperatures rise by 0.2 deg C MORE than the troposphere over 30 years –
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1980/plot/rss/from:1980
– exactly the OPPOSITE of the PREDICTIONS of warmunist theory.
Well we all know that HADCRUT is just another fraud so who cares, but isn’t it funny how blatant they fiddle their temperature up even though they have predicted that the troposphere would HAVE TO warm faster than the surface if their crap were correct? They obviously do not give a flying crap about consistency. Everything for the Paris Machtergreifung!
‘This is the chilling effect of “sceptic” pressure.’
I will BET you most of the people at Die Zeit are not even aware of 90% of skeptic blogs, let alone what is said upon them!
It only needs one man to speak the truth and funny to record is it not that, and every time: the truth has a nasty habit of knocking down some very big walls and defenestrating some very long held beliefs.
Only an idiot or, a charlatan invokes, “the science is settled”.