Prominent German Satirist Slams “McCarthy-Like” Climate Science… “Dark Ages”…Suppression “By Denunciation”

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

The censorship of science now sweeping the globe finally gets a slap-down…

Germany’s Dieter Nuhr slams “McCarthy-like mood” in science after DFB German Research Foundation takes down his statement. Image cropped from nuhr.de/

A message to Ramstorf, Mann, Greta, media, alarmists who declare their science as The Truth.

German, high profile satirist Dieter Nuhr, who earlier criticized Greta’s hysteria, recently saw his statement taken down by the German Research Foundation (DFG) in the latest wave of scientific censorship. 

What follows is Nuhr’s response to the DFG takedown of his statement he posted at Facebook, translated in the English (my emphasis added)

===========================================

“In July I was asked to send in a 30-second voice message on science for the German Research Foundation’s campaign #DFG2020. I made the following original statement:

‘Knowledge does not mean you are 100% sure, but that you have enough facts to have a reasoned opinion. But many people are offended when scientists change their mind: That is normal! Science is just THAT the opinion changes when the facts change. This is because science is not a doctrine of salvation, not a religion that proclaims absolute truths. And those who constantly shout, “Follow science!” have obviously not understood this. Science does not know everything, but it is the only reasonable knowledge base we have. That is why it is so important.’

‘The DFG would like to start by thanking you for your contribution.’ It wrote to me: ‘We thank you very much for your wonderful statement – your trenchant commentary on the relevance and explanation of science.’

The article was then published by the DFG and, due to the ‘strong and very critical response’, was taken down again on July 30th to ‘protect the DFG’ (quoted verbatim).

I find this more than alarming. The fact that criticism comes up when I express myself does not surprise me anymore. No matter what I say, as soon as it becomes public on the Internet, it gets met with organised hate. This is obviously a campaign organized in the Internet to discredit me as a participant in the forming of opinion. It is obvious that this is ideologically based, because I am politically critical of the left AND the right and I am always against any political extremism. This outrages both left and right fanatics, and since I also repeatedly express criticism of religion, I am also criticized from the religious side. As a satirist, you have to live with that.

What’s new is now an organization like the German Research Foundation, which should stand for free thinking like no other, is giving in to the ideologues on the Internet. This is not only astonishing, but also frightens me, because I now perceive a McCarthy-like mood in the country and, in the course of the Cancel culture, I also see the freedom of thought and research in general in danger.

I have been told by the DFG that it is necessary to ‘give in to criticism’ in order to ‘avert damage from the DFG’. I fear that the greater damage will be done if the German Research Foundation is involved in silencing critical and by no means extremist or conspiracy-theoretical voices.

I have never (!!!) argued in an anti-scientific way; on the contrary, I have always stood up against the misuse of science. One example: I have ALWAYS said that I think the Friday For Future movement is basically sympathetic, but that I find the phrase “Follow science” questionable because it suggests that there is one, untouchable opinion and solution strategy for climate change, because this way science is declared a narrative of redemption. That is the opposite of science.

There are different scenarios and different solution strategies not only among the population but also among climate scientists. It is even a basic condition of free research that different theses are allowed and discussed. This is what happens in science. In the public, however, diversity of opinion is increasingly actively suppressed by denunciation. Individual groups proclaim inviolable truths, claim that science is on their side and accordingly treat critical thinkers as heretics, then lump them together with madmen and conspiracy theorists and try to discredit them. That is Dark Ages and frightening.

In these times, shit-storms are increasingly replacing factual argumentation. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE RESPONSIBLE PEOPLE AT THE DFG TO HAVE FOUND SOMETHING “ANTI-SCIENTIFIC” IN ME, IF ONLY BECAUSE IT DOES NOT EXIST. They ‘reacted to criticism’. In other words, the DFG submitted to the rioters who systematically work on the Internet to suppress critical voices at the center of the political spectrum. No one can seriously place me on the fringes of politics anywhere.

The DFG is thus actively involved in pursuing criticism as heresy and muzzling dissenters. However, I consider this to be a phenomenon that seriously endangers democratic discussion, if only because it has reached the scientific community worldwide. At universities, however, massive efforts are being made everywhere to ensure that dissenters are no longer allowed in at all. This is not only outrageous, but frightening. What kind of country do we want to live in? In a country where public reflection is increasingly punished by denunciation and social exclusion? It scares me.”

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

12 responses to “Prominent German Satirist Slams “McCarthy-Like” Climate Science… “Dark Ages”…Suppression “By Denunciation””

  1. Chris Hanley

    The basis of the climate hysteria is contained in the IPCC statement:
    “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of observed warming since 1950, with the level of confidence having increased since the fourth report”.
    That is hardly an indisputable scientific axiom comparable to say Newton’s law of universal gravitation.

  2. tom0mason

    The problem with many peoples’ perception of ‘science’ is it is an orderly catalog of irrefutable facts.
    Certainly there are many tried and tested gems of science whose veracity have stood the test of time. However that does not make these gems irrefutable as someone may, in the future, find a new wrinkle, a new edge, something outside the orthodox of today’s thinking that takes us a little closer to the real truth. It will also give us new questions which will have to be resolved.

    No, ‘Science’ is a process, a continual self correcting method, where hardworking honest scientists search for the truth about nature and the universe about us (by observations and measurements, with verification of results and validation of methods). As such lots of what is revealed in science is incomplete, strewn with irrational theories and illogical assumptions, and has parts with errors, parts which are wrong, and some parts of it(science) that are utter counterfeited nonsense put together by unscrupulous individuals.
    All these shortcomings should over time be corrected (though how long that takes is the great unanswered question).

    Science provides us not with a record of perfection, cataloging all that is known but is an incomplete and error prone listing of what many scientists believed to be true.

    Donald Rumsfeld nearly got it correct (though he was talking about national security)

    There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know.
    There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don’t know.
    But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don’t know we don’t know.

    The main difference with real ‘science’ is there are many things that are believed to be known.

    So, stay humble Mr. Scientist for what you believe you know may be mostly wrong!
    See more error correction at https://retractionwatch.com/

  3. BoyfromTottenham

    Maybe Dieter should change his given name to Trofim (as in Lysenko) and add a short history of Lysenkoism in the USSR, to remind his readers of what happens when science becomes an ideological tool.

  4. John F. Hultquist

    Follow the science: Whose?

    ● Benjamin Santer, or
    ● Richard Lindzen
    – – – – –
    ● Michael E. Mann, or
    ● Robert M. “Bob” Carter

    There are dozens of comparisons such as this.

  5. dennisambler

    “suggests that there is one, untouchable opinion and solution strategy for climate change”

    You first have to accept the paradigm that the climate is changing and is the result of human activity.

  6. Climate Heretic

    Let me remind you a little bit about science:

    1) Science is adversarial, anybody who tells you otherwise is a liar.

    2) If it’s Science it is not consensus.

    3) If it’s Consensus it is not science.

    4) “In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.” Michael Crichton.

    5) Read this article and become woke. https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/michael-crichton-explains-why-there-is-no-such-thing-as-consensus-science/

    This is a very simple lesson to bash AGW with.

    Regards
    Climate Heretic

    1. Yonason

      From your link (my emphasis)…

      “The first link for “global warming consensus” is to this NASA webpage with the title “Scientific Consensus” and the following statement:

      Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: “

      Oh, thank you!

      The fact that NASA officially subscribes to the totally debunked Oreskes/Cooke 97% consensus tells us all we need to know about their “objectivity.”

      Here’s another good in-depth look at the scam of “consensus.”
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMnsyXJH0oI

      Or see any of these…
      https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/10/29/cooks-97-scam-debunked/,

      http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html

      http://www.joseduarte.com/blog/cooking-stove-use-housing-associations-white-males-and-the-97

  7. John Farnham

    The very idea that future weather has been known to have been changed by man as a ‘scientific truth’ is an oxymoron. There is neither observation nor confirmation from things which have not happened – including any ability to demonstrate they have happened ! Then there is the idea that conditions are varied by ‘drivers’ – rather than being the momentary results of changing aggregates similar to wave action. Such may be described somewhat- but are certainly not calculable.

  8. Green Energy Fraudster Sentenced to Seven Years in Prison for Scamming Multiple Federal Agencies and Customers – Newscats Hasslefree Allsort

    […] Image: Prominent German Satirist Slams “McCarthy-Like” Climate Science… “Dark Ages”…Suppression… […]

  9. VICTORY FOR SCIENCE! German Research Foundation Regrets Censorship, Reinstate’s Critic’s Statement

    […] After widespread criticism, the German Research Foundation (DFG) has decided to reverse its July 30th decision to take down a dissident climate science statement from prominent German satirist Dieter Nuhr (background here). […]

  10. VICTORY FOR SCIENCE! German Research Foundation Regrets Censorship, Reinstate's Critic's StatementClimate- Science.press | Climate- Science.press

    […] After widespread criticism, the German Research Foundation (DFG) has decided to reverse its July 30th decision to take down a dissident climate science statement from prominent German satirist Dieter Nuhr (background here). […]

  11. VICTORY FOR SCIENCE! German Research Foundation Regrets Censorship, Reinstate's Critic's Statement | Un hobby...

    […] After widespread criticism, the German Research Foundation (DFG) has decided to reverse its July 30th decision to take down a dissident climate science statement from prominent German satirist Dieter Nuhr (background here). […]

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