Duitse meteorologen verheffen hun stem tegen onethisch gedrag
Moedig initiatief tot herstel integriteit.
Ik heb mij altijd verwonderd over het uitblijven van protest van mainstream klimatologen tegen de misstanden binnen hun vakgebied. Ik ken er velen en het lijken mij allemaal fatsoenlijke mensen. Het voortbestaan van misstanden is niet alleen fnuikend voor de geloofwaardigheid van hun discipline, maar werpt ook een smet op het wetenschapsbedrijf meer in het algemeen. Ik vermoed dat hun terughoudendheid voortspruit uit gevoelens van collegiale loyaliteit, hetgeen op zich niet slecht en begrijpelijk is. Maar er zijn grenzen!
In het kielzog van de Bengtssonaffaire (Bengtssongate?) heeft een aantal leden van de 'Deutsche Meteorologische Gesellschaft' (DMG) nu duidelijk laten blijken dat voor hen de maat vol is en dat zij afstand wensen te nemen van de wijdverbreide onethische praktijken in de klimatologie. Zij hadden reeds in december een memorandum opgesteld waarin zij hun positie hadden toegelicht. De bedoeling was dat dit memorandum door het DMG zou worden gepubliceerd. Deze publiceerde echter slechts een verkorte en verwaterde versie van het document. Zij hebben nu echter het oorspronkelijke memorandum 'gelekt' naar Pierre Gosselin, de webmaster van de Engelstalige website 'NoTricksZone'. De inhoud weerspiegelt de wijdverbreide onvrede onder Duitse meteorologen met de manipulatie en onderdrukking van wetenschappelijke inzichten.
Pierre Gosselin heeft het document voor ons in het Engels vertaald.
Memorandum 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 very 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.
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 over 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, attempt to impose by authority an end to the debate surrounding the fundamental questions. Thus a large number of scientists 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 Free University of Berlin), 28 December 2013.
Lees verder hier.
Het is van het grootste belang dat de wetenschappelijke integriteit op het gebied van de klimatologie weer wordt hersteld en dat de alarmistiche manipulatoren op een zijspoor worden gerangeerd. Gegeven de greep van de politiek op dit vakgebied, vrees ik echter dat er nog een lange weg is te gaan.
Voor mijn eerdere DDSbijdragen zie hier.
Ga verder met lezen
Dit vind je misschien ook leuk
Laat mensen jouw mening weten
