Averting a bloody climate science civil war
It’s time to take the debate away from the extreme factions and to move it to cooler heads, says veteran Swiss meteorologist Jörg Kachelmann
Former German Public television meteorologist Jörg Kachelmann wrote an essay commentary for the Swiss online Die Weltwoche here titled “Tell me where you stand”, where he compares today’s white-hot intolerance seen in climate science to the political intolerance witnessed in former communist East Germany.
In East Germany, either you adhered to the state’s hard communist doctrine, or you were the enemy. Such is the atmosphere we see today in climate science. Kachelmann writes: “Again today it’s either-or, and nothing in between.”
“Debates are important, and we must conduct them with arguments and without the religious furor that is being practiced today by both sides.”
The veteran meteorologist describes how on the climate issue “there are two irreconcilable camps”: the climate deniers and climate hysterics – each arrogantly claiming “infallibility”. It is no longer possible to be in between. Even those in between get insulted and attacked equally by both sides.
Natural science at schools have been “almost completely gutted”
While Kachelmann writes “deniers” are mostly older, right wing persons, the alarmists are made up of mostly “ugly young people” who are the products of school systems that have had their “natural science subjects almost completely gutted out”.
“These people don’t need graphs, but rather the godlike feeling of being on the correct side, which is why you don’t have to be so precise with facts,” Kachelmann comments.
“Today, the divining militancy of both sides is preventing a serious debate on priorities,” He says. “The green and brown nuts try to recruit for their political advantage those who have a big opinion on the subject, but no idea about it.”
Academic (green) supremacists
One example of the militant intolerance Kachelmann describes is illustrated by a recent Twitter comment by Potsdam scientist Stefan Rahmstorf, who reacted to German parliamentarian Philipp Lengsfeld, who earlier had tweeted on a “remarkable” statement recently published by 90 leading Italian scientists who challenged the alarmist climate science and claims of consensus.
Remarkable statement by scientists in Italy. For my taste a bit to hard, but so is the climate debate now: Heated.
From this I discovered a new site, by @NoTricksZone – a list of interesting studies. https://twitter.com/notrickszone/status/1146728105761038336?s=21 …”
Beachtenswert ist es vor allem, wenn ein Abgeordneter eine Klimaleugner-Website nicht von ernstzunehmender Wissenschaft unterscheiden kann und auf eine Unterschriftenliste von überwiegend fachfremden und emeritierten Leuten hereinfällt – noch unglaubwürdiger als die Lungenärzte.
— Stefan Rahmstorf (@rahmstorf) July 6, 2019
That comment by Lengsfeld was obviously too much for Rahmstorf, who was obviously unnerved that a parliamentarian would make such an observation. He not only attacks Lengsfeld and this site here, but he also insults and slanders the 70 Italian scientists.
His Twitter comment in English:
It is particularly noteworthy when a member of parliament cannot distinguish a climate denier website from serious science and falls for a list of signatures by predominantly unprofessional and emeritus people – even more untrustworthy than the lung physicians.”
In Rahmstorf’s view, anyone who challenges the Potsdam alarmist climate position is an enemy of the climate state, and any scientist who questions the science is equivalent to a tobacco scientist.
Yes, its’ time to move the debate and science over to moderate voices.
Jörg Kachelmann is an entrepreneur and a 40-year veteran meteorologist operating the site: https://ift.tt/2r3oqKQ.
July 12, 2019 at 10:01AM