Advertisements

Prestigious German Research Centre Endorses “The League Of Deniers”


“I don’t have much patience for people who deny climate change”
– Barack Obama,
US President

“I hope there are no climate-change deniers in the Department of Interior.
– 
Sally Jewell, U.S. Interior Secretary

claimte-change-deniers-600x357

A common fallback position when losing an argument is to assault your adversary personally. Known as ad hominem, it involves “attacking an opponent’s motives or character rather than the policy or position they maintain.”

In climate science, those who employ this rhetorical tactic attack individuals who ask probing scientific questions. The attacks indicate that they know how inadequate their science is. It often works because of a deliberate campaign to exploit basic sensitivities: fear the sky is falling, guilt about not protecting the environment, guilt about the damage already done, fear and embarrassment of showing ignorance.

People who challenge the claims of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are often labeled “global warming skeptics”. Skeptics do not deny that warming occurred in modern times, but, sensibly, questioned the cause. The IPCC said it was due to human production of CO2. This is driven by a political agenda, not science, so any opposition is considered troublesome and requires silencing.

The IPCC claim is an unproven hypothesis. Science advances by proposing hypotheses that other scientists challenge in their proper role as skeptics. The word skeptic has markedly different public and scientific connotation; negative for the former and positive for the latter. Scientists act as skeptics by trying to disprove the hypothesis. Global warming skeptics are acting appropriately. (Dr Tim Ball, WUWT)

•••

Pierre Gosselin at NoTricksZone has discovered a rather concerning example of a “denier” strike, endorsed by one of Germany’s most respected research centres, the prestigious Helmholtz Center Geesthacht

Prestigious Helmholtz Research Center Gutter-Dives…Promotes Sophomoric Attacks On Skeptics, Labelling Them “Deniers”

By P Gosselin on 20. February 2014

It’s worrisome enough that the German government itself recently issued a brochure singling out, naming, and defaming German and American climate science skeptics. Today we have one of Germany’s most prestigious science associations actively backing adolescent-level attacks on skeptics who have decided not to take part in collective climate hysteria.

This morning on Twitter I happened to come across the following tweet:

Climate-Service-Center-1

Helmholtz Center’s Climate Service Center displays its ugly ideological side in defaming skeptics as deniers. Click here to view defamatory video.

Inhofe, Morano, Michaels, Bachmann labeled “deniers”

The above tweet comes from the Climate Service Center, which provides a link to an intolerant video called “The League of Deniers“, which was produced by Kickstarter.com. In summary the video portrays skeptics as “deniers”, claims that ”the public is misinformed” and that skeptics’ words are “human foolishness”.

– Read on here.

Gosselin posts a series of basic climate questions that identify, not what sceptics deny, but rather what the promoters of CAGW continually fail and refuse to answer :

To help them understand why there are skeptics when it comes to climate science, below are some questions that us skeptics have been waiting 15 years to receive answers.

  1. Why has there been no global warming for 17 years?
  2. Why have 97% of the climate models failed to foresee this?
  3. Why has Antarctic sea ice been well above normal for more than 2 years?
  4. Why are northern hemispheric winters getting colder?
  5. What makes the present warm period any different from that of the Medieval warm period?
  6. Why is it that CO2 has been suddenly assumed to be the major climate factor and the rest like the sun and oceans
  7. If there is consensus on manmade climate change, then why is there so much controversy over it?
  8. Do you think that it’s not necessary to have skeptics in order for science to progress?

Perhaps instead of wasting taxpayer resources on sophomorically defaming and ridiculing those who legitimately ask questions, the Helmholtz Center ought to focus on providing some clear answers for the above questions for once.

Continue reading »

•••

UPDATE

Climate scientist Dr Roy Spencer has had enough…

Screen Shot 2014-02-21 at , February 21, 6.38.49 am

Yeah, somebody pushed my button.

When politicians and scientists started calling people like me “deniers”, they crossed the line. They are still doing it.

They indirectly equate (1) the skeptics’ view that global warming is not necessarily all manmade nor a serious problem, with (2) the denial that the Nazi’s extermination of millions of Jews ever happened.

Too many of us for too long have ignored the repulsive, extremist nature of the comparison. It’s time to push back.

I’m now going to start calling these people “global warming Nazis”.

The pseudo-scientific ramblings by their leaders have falsely warned of mass starvation, ecological collapse, agricultural collapse, overpopulation…all so that the masses would support their radical policies. Policies that would not voluntarily be supported by a majority of freedom-loving people.

They are just as guilty as the person who cries “fire!” in a crowded theater when no fire exists. Except they threaten the lives of millions of people in the process.

Like the Nazis, they advocate the supreme authority of the state (fascism), which in turn supports their scientific research to support their cause (in the 1930s, it was superiority of the white race).

Dissenting scientific views are now jack-booted through tactics like pressuring scientific journals to not publish papers with which they disagree…even getting journal editors to resign.

Like the Nazis, they are anti-capitalist. They are willing to sacrifice millions of lives of poor people at the altar of radical environmentalism, advocating expensive energy policies that increase poverty. And if there is a historically demonstrable threat to humanity, it is poverty.

Continue reading »

Time to push back against the global warming Nazis « Roy Spencer, PhD

Bravo Dr Spencer.

What has become of society, and science, when one of the core principles of the scientific method – the ability to question it – is met with “Nazi” totalitarian hostility?

The inference ‘eco-fascism’ not too far from the truth at all.

H/t to Andrew Bolt.

•••

UPDATE

Climate Service Center (CSC) has removed “The League Of Deniers” video link from their webpage.

However, their tweet endorsement still remains.

•••

UPDATE

via Jo Nova :

Climate Change Denial and the Holocaust allusion

Readers here will know that my problem with the term “denial” is with its misuse in English*. But the term “denier” is also used as a character slur to mark those who disagree in a science debate as being as odious as Holocaust deniers. The hope, apparently, is that dissenting views should be shunned and their arguments and evidence ignored. It’s a cheap debating tactic to shut down debate for those without evidence and reason, but it’s incredibly effective if you have the media on your side. What’s amazing is how many otherwise smart people don’t see through this babyish rhetorical stunt.

Last week Roy Spencer had had enough. In response to years of name-calling, he  protested at being called a “denier” and said

“Too many of us for too long have ignored the repulsive, extremist nature of the comparison. It’s time to push back.  I’m now going to start calling these people “global warming Nazis”.

Continue reading »

•••

See also : 

Related :

Climatism Trending :

Advertisements

Obama: My Plan Makes Electricity Rates Skyrocket

Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about
?”
– Maurice Strong,
founder of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP)

“Climate change is real. Not only is it real, it’s here,
and its effects are giving rise to a frighteningly new
global phenomenon: the man-made natural disaster.

– Barack Obama,
US President

•••

UPDATE : Washington Post Slams Kerry For Pushing Obama’s Climate BS | Real Science

See also :

Obamaclimate Related :

H/t to Al Zore


THE TIMES : The sceptics are right. Don’t scapegoat them

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to 
know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC 
Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itohan award-winning PhD environmental physical
chemist.

“Global warming-at least the modern nightmare version – is a myth. I am sure of it and so are a growing number of scientists. But what is really worrying is that the world’s politicians and policy makers are not.” – David Bellamy, Daily Mail, July 9, 2004

“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.” – Nobel Prize Winner for
Physics, Ivar Giaever.

•••

Matt Ridley’s excellent piece in the The Times …

Screen Shot 2014-02-20 at , February 20, 1.27.13 pm

The sceptics are right. Don’t scapegoat them

Matt Ridley

Times columnist Matt Ridley
Last updated at 12:01 AM, February 17 2014

There is no evidence, Mr Miliband, Lord Stern and others, that our floods and storms are related to climate change.

In the old days we would have drowned a witch to stop the floods. These days the Green Party, Greenpeace and Ed Miliband demand we purge the climate sceptics. No insult is too strong for sceptics these days: they are “wilfully ignorant” (Ed Davey), “headless chickens” (the Prince of Wales) or “flat-earthers” (Lord Krebs), with “diplomas in idiocy” (one of my fellow Times columnists).

What can these sceptics have been doing that so annoys the great and the good? They sound worse than terrorists. Actually, sceptics have pretty well all been purged already: look what happened to Johnny Ball and David Bellamy at the BBC. Spot the sceptic on the Climate Change Committee. Find me a sceptic within the Department of (energy and) Climate Change. Frankly, the sceptics are a ragtag bunch of mostly self-funded guerrillas, who have made little difference to policy — let alone caused the floods.

What’s more, in the row over whether climate change is causing the current floods and storms, the sceptics are the ones who are sticking to the consensus, as set out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — you know, the body that the alarm-mongers are always telling us to obey. And it is the sceptics who have been arguing for years for resilience and adaptation, rather than decarbonisation.

Mr Miliband says: “This winter is a one-in-250-year event” (yet it’s nothing like as wet as 1929-30 if you count the whole of England and Wales, let alone Britain) and that “the science is clear”. The chief scientist of the Met Office, Dame Julia Slingo, tells us “all the evidence” suggests that climate change is contributing to this winter’s wetness. (Why, then, did she allow the Met Office to forecast in November that a dry winter was almost twice as likely as a wet winter?) Lord Stern, an economist, claimed that the recent weather is evidence “we are already experiencing the impact of climate change”. [For a thorough debunk of Lord Stern’s comments on the global position, see below.]

All three are choosing to disagree with the IPCC consensus. Here’s what the IPCC’s latest report actually says:

“There continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale.”

Here’s what a paper published by 17 senior IPCC scientists from five different countries said last month:

“It has not been possible to attribute rain-generated peak streamflow trends to anthropogenic climate change over the past several decades.”

They go on to say that blaming climate change is a politician’s cheap excuse for far more relevant factors such as “what we do on or to the landscape” — building on flood plains, farm drainage etc.

As for recent gales caused by a stuck jetstream, Dr Mat Collins, of Exeter University, an IPCC co-ordinating lead author, has revealed that the IPCC discussed whether changes to the jetstream could be linked to greenhouse gases and decided they could not. “There is no evidence that global warming can cause the jetstream to get stuck in the way it has this winter,” he says, in a statement that raises questions about Dame Julia’s credibility.

In 2012, the Met Office agreed:

“There continues to be little evidence that the recent increase in storminess over the UK is related to man-made climate change.”

So please will Lord Stern, Dame Julia and Mr Miliband explain why they are misleading the public about the science?

That consensus, by the way, has never said that climate change will necessarily be dangerous. The oft-quoted 97 per cent agreement among scientists refers to the statement that man-made climate change happens, not to future projections [and anyway it has been comprehensively discredited and described as infamous by a prominent climate scientist]. No climate change sceptic that I know “denies” climate change, or even human contributions to it. It’s a lazy and unpleasant slur to say that they do.

Sceptics say it is not happening fast enough to threaten more harm than the wasteful and regressive measures intended to combat it. So far they have been right. Over 30 years, global temperature has changed far more slowly than predicted in 95 per cent of the models, and has decelerated, not accelerated. When the sceptic David Whitehouse first pointed out the current 15 to 17-year standstill in global warming (after only 18 to 20 years of warming), he was ridiculed; now the science establishment admits the “pause” but claims to have some post-hoc explanations.

While the green lobby has prioritised decarbonisation, sceptics have persistently advocated government spending on adaptation, so as to grab the benefits of climate change but avoid the harm, and be ready for cooling as well if the sun goes into a funk. Yesterday Mr Miliband yet again prioritised carbon limits — cold comfort to those flooded from their homes. Huge sums have been spent on wind farms and bio-energy, with trivial impact on emissions. The money has come disproportionately from the fuel bills of poor people and gone disproportionately to rich people.

Given that there are about 25,000 excess winter deaths each year, adding 5 per cent to fuel bills kills far more people now than (possibly) adding 5 per cent to future rainfall totals ever would. If just a fraction of renewable energy subsidies sluiced towards wind farms by the climate secretaries Ed Miliband and Ed Davey had instead been put into flood defences, they would have done far more good.

Meanwhile, please notice that those lambasting the sceptics work for you, drawing wages from public bodies supported by the taxpayer: Lord Stern, Lord Deben, Dame Julia Slingo, Sir Mark Walport, Professor Kevin Anderson, even a spin doctor called Bob Ward, and more. Most of the sceptics operate on self-employed shoestrings and cost you nothing: Andrew Montford, David Holland, Nic Lewis, Doug Keenan, Paul Homewood, Fay Kelly-Tuncay. There is only one professional sceptic in the entire country — Benny Peiser — and he is not paid by the taxpayer.

Despite the fuss, sceptics have had little effect. Renewable subsidies for the rich grow larger every year. Jobs are still being destroyed by carbon floor prices and high energy costs. Emissions targets have not been lowered. At the very most, George Osborne and his allies may have slightly pinched the flow of funds to consultants and academics to talk about the subject. Maybe that’s what makes the great and the good so cross.

Continue Reading »

The sceptics are right. Don’t scapegoat them. – Matt Ridley

•••

More Matt Ridley :

See also :

IPCC Failed Climate Models :

Related :