Leaked Memo On Climatology Exposes Growing Worry Within German Meteorological Society…
”Unacceptable Unethical Developments” Clearly grave concern is emerging over a large swath of the broader German meteorological-climatological community in the wake of the Lennart Bengtsson witchhunt.
A reader/professor has sent me an internal memo he recently obtained from a meteorologist and member of the Deutsche Meteorologische Gesellschaft [German Meteorological Society], abbreviated as DMG. Clearly grave concern is emerging over a large swath of the broader German meteorological-climatological community in the wake of the Lennart Bengtsson witchhunt.
The memo was authored by a group of dissenting DMG-member meteorologists and intended to be published in the DMG reports, but never saw the light of day.
It reveals a growing and widespread worry over the suppression of scientific views among German Meteorological Society members. One of the authors of the memorandum wrote an e-mail to the reader who provided the copy to me. He writes:
A circle of mostly older colleagues of the Free University of Berlin, who very much reject the tone one finds in today’s field of climatology, has asked me to draft a memorandum on the subject and to publish it in the Reports of the German Meteorological Society. Shortened by a half and totally watered down, the memorandum appeared in the last issue. I now take the liberty to bring the original version to your attention.
Greetings and cordial asscoication yours, ************”
…
…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.
I’ve deleted the name to protect the source. What follows is the original, un-watered down version of the memorandum – translated in English:
– See entire letter at: http://notrickszone.com/2014/05/16/leaked-memo-on-climatology-exposes-growing-worry-within-german-meteorological-society-unacceptable-unethical-developments/#sthash.lf0aNACX.dpuf
Could some elements within the CACA Mafia be starting to worry (even more) about potential future fallout & the damage unwarranted support for their Cause has done to their own reputations & that of science in general?
Nah!
Not until governments around the world turn off the funding spigot, by which time most established voodoo practitioners will be safely retired & beyond the reach of retribution.
If they succeed in allowing the Gaia Watermelon Cult to undo the Industrial Age they btter have a Sierra Club Witsec set up b/c butts will be kicked.
sven10077 says:
May 16, 2014 at 2:27 pm
Yes. All the wrong ones.
This is a good point… If you want some comic relief, check out http://worthlessworldnews.wordpress.com
Old guys. What do they know about the past?
the counter to this will be that they’re only ‘meteorologists’ and just don’t have the knowledge and understanding that ‘real climate scientists’ do
I am delighted to see Mr. William Connelly get yet another well- deserved smackdown, in the comment section of the notrickszone thread, linked above.
I see from the comments ay Pierre’s site that William Connolly is the firefighter on duty today, but in this battle of wits he has arrived armed with a very small hose.
Unless I’m missing something, the foremost scientific authorities in Germany cannot accept nor can they comply with the current IPCC’s definition of professional ethics.
Looks like scientists have had enough of the Al Gore Climate Science review process?
“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.” *
* – See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2014/05/16/leaked-memo-on-climatology-exposes-growing-worry-within-german-meteorological-society-unacceptable-unethical-developments/#sthash.lf0aNACX.0jtvqH0u.dpuf
I don’t believe it’s the “democratization of science” as he puts it that is the problem. It is more like the bastardization of science or the prostitution of science to an agenda. He has made a brave start, but needs to dig deeper.
Much, much deeper.
Outright lying is unethical and dangerous and must stop now! My father was censored by this cabal ten years ago. They are relentless and vicious.
– – – – – – – –
We have in that statement an ominous declaration of the necessity of a major climate science community self-correction away from the ideology represented by the IPCC.
It is a solemn moment of promise for the scientific self correction process.
John
It starts with an innocent question. Why?
And soon, the ones that had stopped thinking, start again. This is a hopeful sign. I look forward to the return of truth and ethics in the field.
– – – – – – –
philjourdan,
Elegant.
John
My experience over the years has been as someone told me a long time ago: The bystanders get shot, the innocent are tried and hanged, and the guilty are elected to high office.
Me thinks Mann O Man O Meters and popcorn sales are about to go through the roof! Hopefully more bombs and fallout from the bullying of honest scientists will force the media to report some truth instead of the incessant alarmist drivel published daily….
Two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch is a democracy.
Two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch when mutton is stricken from the menu is a liberal democracy.
Scientific communities must be liberal democracies where individual rights are respected even when it offends the majority.
The problem for climate science is the skeptics.
It is not a problem of what is the truth.
They do not want to give any credence or any ammunition to the skeptical community.
They just want to fight us at every possible battle.
They can’t allow any of their movement to publish in an objective way because that just gives ammunition to the skeptics.
So, it not a search for the “truth” like other sciences are based on.
It is just a movement against “us”.
It is time to recognize that this is just a fight between us and them apparently. We keep thinking it is a search for truth and a search for facts. While they just want to silence any opposition.
It is not science, it is war. It is time for the skeptics to adopt a new war plan.
What’s happening in climate science is very democratic. One group finds itself in the majority and it assumes it should have all the power, all the say, and all the authority.
Goodness me. Sounds like a conspiracy to me. It is a pity that nature is now part of the conspiracy. I wish the record temperatures would stop happening, glaciers would stop receding, sea water temperatures increasing etc. It makes it very hard to to argue against global warming. It no wonder the meteorology – climatology people this writer represents feel persecuted.
Have you ever lived in a neighborhood with a dog that barks, and barks, and barks, and barks, and barks, and barks, and barks, and barks, and barks, and barks? Check the name on the dog tag. I’ll wager a bet it says Bill C.
Strap that man to a tree 300 yds out sideways and plunk a cherry on his head. He’ll be singing natural variation in no time. Or soprano if I miss.
Mods, delete at will, cuz I just went way over the two glasses of wine Friday night Leprechaun limit.
[Out side? Fine. Outsideways? OK, but a little kinky. But the cherry on top has got to go. 8<) ]
John McClure says:May 16, 2014 at 4:13 pm
“Unless I’m missing something, the foremost scientific authorities in Germany cannot accept nor can they comply with the current IPCC’s definition of professional ethics.”
You are missing something. We are not told who wrote this document, except that he was a meteorologist. Or whose opinion it represents.
I found the translation on offer hard to parse. Here is my own (I’m a native speaker of German):
—
On the situation in the scientific field of meteorology and climatology
Long-standing developments in general, as well as the recent publication of the 5. IPCC report, have persuaded a number of colleagues from the field of meteorology that tendencies are becoming entrenched in their field which they simply cannot accept, since they violate both their scientific standards and their professional ethos.
These developments began with what may be called a democratization of science. Everyone is encouraged to participate. In meteorology and climatology, this applies, worldwide, to an untold number of people who are highly organized yet hardly known [in scientific circles]. In our country [Germany], almost the entire public has become involved. This has changed the entire concept of science, and we consider that the standards of scientific quality have changed decidedly for the worse. In the field of meteorology, the number of misrepresentations being voiced and disseminated is so large that one can hardly manage to keep up, and certainly not to set the record straight in public. Nevertheless, our colleagues from meteorology do not speak up.
These developments are driven by a political ambition to change society, acknowledged by some, but little noticed by the public. One may or may not agree with this political campaign, which currently aims for sustainability.
[The professionals from] meteorology/climatology assume a leading role in this political campaign. The – alleged – consensus on the role of CO2 is used as political leverage by a group that, on the one hand, consists of scientific colleagues from climatology, but on the other hand also includes a large number of climate functionaries from all spheres of society. Both groups [scientists and others] have established the consensus as a binding dogma within science, even though this act was completely at odds with science.
This is, however, not the first such occasion in the history of science. In the current case, the dogma emerged through democratic procedures, but it is nevertheless enforced with dictatorial methods. Doubt and skepticism are, de facto, verboten and subject to punishment. In climatology, such doubts arise naturally with published data collections or with the results of model calculations, which are often adopted from third parties and usually not [reported in sufficient detail to be] amenable to inspection and validation. And we had previously considered ourselves rid of such abuses, thanks to our celebrated free and democratic constitution and institutions!
[I read this last sentence as an – apt – allusion to the disenfranchised life in former East Germany]
The incessant assertions of consensus by the aforementioned climatologists, who relentlessly try to prove human-caused climate change, have effectively imposed an end to all substantial scientific debate. In the process, they have marginalized and ostracized a sizable number of scientific colleagues, and they [gained enough influence, so that they] could push through actions that impose a considerable economic burden on the well-meaning public. We agree – among ourselves, but also with many scientific colleagues – that such impositions, and their implied consequences for society, cannot be justified, given our current [limited] knowledge and understanding.
We should therefore hope that, in general and also within our scientific discipline, we will achieve a return to an unprejudiced practice of science that lives up to international standards, such as used to be the norm in former times. This entails the freedom to share and publish scientific results, as long as they are solid, even if they do not agree with mainstream assertions, for example those of the IPCC.
This account reflects the sentiments of a group of socially responsible members within the Berlin/Brandenburg chapter of the German meteorological society.
—
I think the declaration would have more of an impact if someone had signed their name to it. Anyhow, people in the field will be able to figure who wrote this, so the secrecy serves no real purpose. In any case, it does suggest that the sands are shifting.
[Thank you. Mod]
Rabbit, the scientific community MUST be a republic. Not a democratic society.