When I first saw this I thought to myself “maybe posting this isn’t appropriate on Veterans Day”. Then, after additional reflection, I realized this is exactly what our American veterans and the allies fought for: freedom of speech and freedom from tyranny. The seeds of tyranny appear to be taking hold again in the German government at least when it comes to climate change issues. – Anthony
~~~~~~
From Pierre Gosselins “No Tricks Zone”, apparently they really don’t like Fred Singer in Germany.
Branding of Dissenters Has Begun – Clearing The Path To A Climate Science Pogrom
What is it with these intolerant zealots who refuse to learn anything from history?
Right smack on the anniversary of Kristallnacht, German Parliamentarians, in a frontal assault, are now openly calling out and branding scientists for the crime of scientific dissent. These out-of-control Parliamentarians are demanding that the German government take a position against dissenting views in climate science.
What follows makes McCarthyism look like a treasure hunt. What a number of zealous German Parliamentarians are calling for borders on a call to launch a science pogrom.
The climate dogmatists are finding it increasingly difficult to cope with the growing scepticism and dissent now spreading in Germany and Europe, and want to stamp it out – and now.
Journalist Dirk Maxeiner here brings our attention to this latest development on the exploding intolerance that has gripped certain factions in Germany. The branding of climate science dissenters has begun. Fred Singer and EIKE (European Institute For Climate and Energy) are the first to feel the sting of the denier-branding-iron. Read background here.
Some may think that I’m being over-dramatic here. I am not. The situation that the few, yet very vocal, sceptics face here is precarious. Just read the following query written by a faction of Parliamentarians to the German Government, translated from the German text at Dirk Maxeiner’s site (emphasis added, and note the use of the term “denier” throughout the text)):
Read the full post here: Branding of Dissenters Has Begun – Clearing The Path To A Climate Science Pogrom
Luboš Motl has an opinion also, here
Gosh, it’s hardly news that Greens – in any country – say outrageous things. Imagine the national stereotypes (more accurate ones, too) we could make about statements by those on the fringes of the US political system.
WUWT has some very good, sensible scientific posts. It really harms your credibility – unnecessarily – to make stupid, bigoted statements about Germans being like Nazis.
A real cheap shot. I hope not too many people read it, they might be put off examining your posts on the climate.
R. de Haan says:
November 11, 2010 at 11:55 am
Stop Global Dumbing Now says:
November 11, 2010 at 11:22 am
S Basinger says:
November 11, 2010 at 8:52 am
______________________________
“I don’t think so:”
Sigh! They spoil everything. A happy sun beaming on a happy ocean, maybe?
@Mike Jonas:
I agree with your comments about passive smoking, but dispute your characterisation of the nature of recent discussion over CFC emissions and the ozone layer. You reference
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/25/new-theory-predicts-the-largest-ozone-hole-over-antarctica-will-occur-this-month/
This concerns the type of radiation that may catalyse the reaction and how this may effect calculations of the expected size of the hole. The original model assumed that the reaction was catalysed only by sunlight. The new suggestion under discussion is that ionising radiation (cosmic rays) may also play a role in catalysing the reaction. Hence the rate of reaction would show a dependency on solar weather and the sunspot cycle. This is merely a minor adjustment to the model of ozone depletion taking one more factor into account and enabling a potentially more accurate prediction of the size of the hole each year. It doesn’t overturn the basic theory.
There was no suggestion that CFCs are not a problem or that the ozone hole is natural. There was no challenge to the theory that the hole is created by ozone undergoing a catalysed reaction with chlorine in the upper atmosphere. Nobody is challenging the belief that this chlorine gets up there almost entirely via manmade CFCs. What people are discussing are factors which may effect the rate of this reaction.
Your description of this discussion using the words …
… is therefore incorrect.
Ian H – you may very well be right, but the CFC emissions theory is getting slightly (and I mean slightly) stretched by events; the ozone hole wasn’t supposed to be hitting new highs. Best that we test theories hard over time, rather than accept them too easily. You say “This is merely a minor adjustment to the model of ozone depletion taking one more factor into account and enabling a potentially more accurate prediction of the size of the hole each year. It doesn’t overturn the basic theory.“. Again, you may well be right, but quantification would be appreciated.
dp says:
November 11, 2010 at 9:24 am
Zero chance I’ll be buying that BMW motorcycle, now.
At the risk of going off topic, I can recommend motot guzzi. 😀 The Italians haven’t invaded europe for ages…
But don’t blame all Germans for the silliness of a few.
a very angry European public in the very near future.
George E. Smith says:
November 11, 2010 at 5:36 pm
“”””” netdr2 says:
November 11, 2010 at 9:19 am
Poptech says:
November 11, 2010 at 9:09 am
George, he was very confused and did apologize for his comment later in the thread.
[snip]
George E. Smith says:
November 11, 2010 at 5:36 pm
George netdr2 apologized way up above somewhere.
Singer was a guest author here (on another topic) within the past two months and explained this at length. (I searched for his thread but couldn’t find it under his name.) Basically what he said was that the EPA had fudged and fiddled in order to get the strength of their finding up to the “significant” level. I.e., up to 95%, when it was only in fact 90% or somewhere in the 80s. So he wasn’t exactly “denying” the link, but only questioning our level of certainty about it, and pointing to weaknesses in the studies that purport to show that certainty. He also stated (I think) that he believed in that connection.
I have the impression that his position on the ozone hole is similar, but more skeptical: that it’s been oversold, and moreover is doubtful.
He denied in that guest post that he’d received money from an oil company. (My guess, again based on zero research, is that he was funded by a libertarian think tank that received funding from Exxon, and that his critics have cut out the middleman in order to blacken him.)
If all this is so, or nearly so, he’s been essentially smeared by his critics.
Mike Jonas says:
November 11, 2010 at 5:11 pm
Chris : “If you a relly considering Fred Singer a relible scientist, and his work empiric I can just commiserate with you. Despite his vita, he is also know for very controverse positions including:
– denial of existance on a connection between passive smoking and lung cancer
– denial of existance on a connection of CFC emission and influence on the ozone layer”
I would suggest that (a) it is necessary to distinguish between scientific thinking and advocacy, and (b) Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information [a lot of the negative information about climate skeptics seems to come from there].
On passive smoking, Fred Singer is reported as saying “When all else fails, there’s always tobacco. I am nonsmoker, belong to an anti-smoking organization (ACSH), and hate cigarette smoke. But this does not affect my science. Expert epidemiologists, including those at the Congressional Research Service, all agree that EPA cooked the data in order to link ‘second-hand’ smoke to lung-cancer deaths.“.”
Mike,
Fred Singer was paid by the tobacco industry to counter the scientific data on the harmful effects of second hand smoke. This is public knowledge. It is immaterial whether he smokes or not. His claims in this area are suspect.
Does Singer also dispute the publication by the surgeon general.?
“The United States Surgeon General in 2006 published a document entitled The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: A Report of the Surgeon General, outlining the adverse health effects of exposure. Some people think that these risks aren’t that important. But Crystal’s study may lead people to now believe that any exposure – no matter how infrequent, no matter how limited – is bad for one’s health.”
Mike says:
“On the ozone layer, there has been a lot of discussion recently, and it seems that there really might not be much connection between CFC emissions and the ozone layer, and that the influences on the ozone layer are mainly natural.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/25/new-theory-predicts-the-largest-ozone-hole-over-antarctica-will-occur-this-month/”
The fact that intense and rare cosmic rays effect the ozone does not show that CFC’s have no effect. This argument is a logical fallacy. The Montreal Protocol which banned CFC’s did not have any economic impact, and the decline in minimum Ozone levels over Antarctica seems to have stopped.
As far as I know, Singer hasn’t published any peer reviewed articles on ozone depletion or anything else of significance since 1972.
The criticism of Singer by the German Green party is fully justified by the facts in the public record.
I have had one post totally snipped, and another post eliminated without a trace.
These posts pointed out that Singer has no peer reviewed publications and was paid by oil and cigarette industry money to say what he is saying. If the dollars came through front organizations, which were set up to do the work of casting doubt on the peer reviewed science, it doesn’t make him any less of a shill.
[REPLY – I repeat: Sometimes posts wind up in the spam filter. There is no “post awaiting moderation” message. It appears to have vanished. It hasn’t. We go through the spam filters periodically and retrieve valid posts. Are we clear on this now? We do snip some posts. We do so less than any AGW site you will ever encounter. I have had posts snipped. Please accept the judgment of the moderators. ~ Evan]
chris says: “If you a relly considering Fred Singer a relible scientist, and his work empiric I can just commiserate with you.
Despite his vita, he is also know for very controverse positions including:
– denial of existance on a connection between passive smoking and lung cancer”
Multicenter Case–Control Study of Exposure to
Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Lung Cancer
in Europe
eadler says: November 11, 2010 at 10:33 pm
“……..Singer has no peer reviewed publications……”
Why do you (and your camp) weigh so heavily on peer-reviewed publications?
Peer review is often far from being perfect. Often relies on the whimsicality of reviewer(s).
For instance, of roughly 150 peer-reviewed papers I’ve published so far (mostly in English, some in French and German) in the field of photosynthesis research, only a handful will remain of some (small) value into the future.
If you are in academia, Mr. (?) eadler, you should be well aware of such an actuality.
::facepalm:: Godwin’s Law.
If it is unclear to you how asking someone to publicly state their opinion is different from sending said person to a death camp and throwing said’s children alive into a furnace (and repeating that scenario a few million times), then you are not equipped to have an adult conversation. Draw analogies to the Nazis (outside of an actual genocide) and you show yourself to be intellectually incapable of having a meaningful conversation. Sorry, it’s just the way it is.
Chris
eadler says:
November 11, 2010 at 9:40 pm
The criticism of Singer by the German Green party is fully justified by the facts in the public record.
Criticism? please replace with the word ‘the denier Singer’ as its appears you agree with there statements. I would also suggest you actually read more posts on Antony’s site as it will help in your understanding of why people here are skeptical about AGW.
Or you could just keep attacking people because they have a different view.
Just a reminder…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-11737421
12 November 2010
Unexploded German WWII bomb found in Plymouth made safe
eadler says: “Mike,
Fred Singer was paid by the tobacco industry to counter the scientific data on the harmful effects of second hand smoke. This is public knowledge. It is immaterial whether he smokes or not. His claims in this area are suspect.
Does Singer also dispute the publication by the surgeon general.? “
You say “This is public knowledge” yet you offer no substantiation. You say “His claims in this area are suspect”, yet, again, you offer no documentation for your accusations. You say “Singer was paid by the tobacco industry” and again you offer nothing that would show us that this is so. All we have is your word. You can come on here and say anything you want at any time but that doesn’t make it true.
I’m curious. Do you drive a car? Have you ever used gasoline to fill you car’s tank? Do you use deodorant? Do you drink soda? Do you own a pair of athletic shoes? Do you own a television? A computer? An electric or handheld toothbrush? The list could go on, but if you have ever used any of these products, then you are guilty of supporting big oil and I think I’ll not believe anything you say anymore because you willingly, of your own free will use their products, and must be in their pocket.
You also say: “As far as I know Singer hasn’t published any peer reviewed articles on ozone depletion or anything else of significance since 1972.” So you’re not really sure, right? He might have, but if he did, you don’t know about it, right? In the last, let’s see- 2010 minus 1972 is (I have to open up my calculator here) 38 years!- Singer has not published one peer reviewed article on ozone depletion or anything else that is significant. Jeez! For a guy that so many people, including many scientists, hold in high regard, he sure is a slouch!
So I guess when you say “The criticism of Singer by the German Green party is fully justified by the facts in the public record.”, you know for sure that the German greens are “fully justified” because you are familiar with “the facts in the public record”. Right? Please, fill us in on some of those facts. Personally, I don’t think you can.
Full disclosure: I have read a couple of Mr. Singer’s books and several of his articles. I also think AGW is a hoax and we are more likely to see an ice age sooner than a blast furnace. Mr. Watts doesn’t like his site used for hurling personal insults, which I admire, so I will zip.
damian says:
November 11, 2010 at 8:34 pm
dp says:
November 11, 2010 at 9:24 am
Zero chance I’ll be buying that BMW motorcycle, now.
At the risk of going off topic, I can recommend moto guzzi. 😀 The Italians haven’t invaded europe for ages…
Seconded. I have a Guzzi T3 and a Quota, great motorcycles. SO much more style and panache than the blocky, square BMW boxer. Designer Leno Tonti once told a journalist who complained how noisy the Moto Guzzi Le Mans was:
“Eez notta noise; Eez a music!
But don’t blame all Germans for the silliness of a few.
My Grandfather fought in both world wars, and even he said he liked most ordinary German people. He did have a bee in his bonnet about the Scots though for some unexplained reason. I never got to the bottom of that, and he took his bigotry to his grave with him.
Would it not make sense to check these things out before stating misinformation?
A comparison of tropical temperature trends with model predictions
(International Journal of Climatology, Volume 28, Issue 13, pp. 1693-1701, December 2007)
– David H. Douglass, John R. Christy, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer
Altitude dependence of atmospheric temperature trends: Climate models versus observation
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 31, Issue 13, July 2004)
– David H. Douglass, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer
Disparity of tropospheric and surface temperature trends: New evidence
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 31, Issue 13, July 2004)
– David H. Douglass, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer, Paul C. Knappenberger, Patrick J. Michaels
Human Contribution to Climate Change Remains Questionable
(Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, Volume 80, Issue 16, pp. 183-183, April 1999)
– S. Fred Singer
Statistical analysis does not support a human influence on climate
(Energy & Environment, Volume 13, Number 3, pp. 329-331, July 2002)
– S. Fred Singer
Sorry the tone of this article is ridiculous. Americans tend to associate any news from Germany with naziism as an excuse for fingerpointing, especially those who have no first hand experience in Germany. Reality check please. American right wing zealots are much, much less enlightened than even the most stubborn German “Green”. Beam in one’s own eye etc. …
What actually happened was this: The Green party in the German parliament (i.e. not the government) has tabled a parliamentary question about the views of the government on “climate skepticism”. So far there is no answer yet.
It’s true that the text of the question wants to brand “denialism” as not worth discussing and pressures the government into reatreating funding. Yes and that is tell tale of the Greens’ attitude and agenda.
I might come round to posting a translation in a later post if there’s any interest.
@ur momisugly James Sexton
Lord Mansfield was the judge at the trial in 1772 of James Somersett, a slave who had come to England with his “owner,” a customs officer from Boston, Massachusetts. Somersett escaped and was recaptured but was freed by the judge. His verdict immediately resulted in slavery becoming illegal in Britain but it remained legal in the colonies until Wilberforce and his allies finally managed to get an act through parliament in 1807 making it illegal throughout the British Empire.
Lord Mansfield is often quoted as saying “the air of England is too pure for a slave to breathe” but according to the web page below it was actually the lawyer defending James Somersett, the escaped slave, who said those words. I didn’t know that. I had always assumed it was the judge.
Somersett’s Case
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somersett%27s_Case
A number of people have responded to my defence of Germany by pointing out bad cases of German intolerance since World War II. They have a point and they could have added to the examples by mentioning the Baader-Meinhof Gang, a terrorist movement also known as the Red Army Faction, that came into existance in 1970 and survived in some form until the 1990s.
However a German could respond by pointing to the activities of the IRA and its “Protestant” counterparts in Britain. Furthermore many of the people behind the Al-Qaeda inspired bomb explosions on trains and a bus in London three years ago were born in the UK although their parents were immigrants.
A German could also point to McCarthyism in the United States in the 1950s, the murders of Civil Rights workers by racists in the 1960s, and the activities of the Weatherman and the Unabomber, the Oaklahoma City bombing, government-approved use of waterboarding etc.
The point I’m making is not to try and prove that one nation is better or worse than another but to show that postwar Germany is not unique.
The freedom of speech of climate sceptics in Germany is important and may need defending but those of us who live in other countries should not be complacent. It would not be to difficult for me to list cases (not involving the climate) where freedom of speech has been under threat in Britain in recent years and I would not be surprised if people could also find examples in other nations.
please correct the headline to – German Green Politicians….
Definetly NOT all Germans nor all German politicians ( ~11% green) the headline is unfair
@commieBob
The Germans, in their zeal to stomp out anything Nazi, have passed laws that essentially make it illegal to deny the holocaust. In Germany, deniers are therefore illegal.
No. The “Allied Control Council”, the joint committe of the US, UK, French ans Soviet authorities controlling post war Germany, outlawed the nazi party and any public endorsement of their policies. The Federal Republic of Germany merely left those laws in place.
Anthony, thanks for listening.. a little criticism though, sometimes it hard to see where your commentary ends and where quotations start (or end for that matter.) I work in a government office and produce documents that are distributed on a daily basis.. the formatting and typesetting is clear, cogent and understandable for anybody reading….
I can’t say the same thing for your blog posts… often the quotations are silently slipped in or the greater article is just spliced into the article with incredible sloppiness that can often lead the reader into wondering when the article ends and your commentary begins again!
Sometimes it can be very confusing what is actually going on in these blog posts… think about the first time reader of your blog. Would a better presentation of the facts be preferrable for them?
REPLY: try reading sober – Anthony