Via No Tricks Zone;
‘Unfortunately in climate science there is a tendency to proclaim absolute truths and to link these immediately to instructions on actions to take,’ [IPCC lead author Hans von Storch] said. ‘The climate pope tells us what has to be done, and for the people it’s: keep your mouths shut. Scientists have been taking over the roles of medicine men and priests. That’s not the job of scientists. Science is supposed to help understand problems, show the possibilities that exist in dealing with them. The best is to show many possibilities. Then the political process has to decide the path to take.’
But some of his colleagues in science like to use ‘stories that point to a catastrophe,’ said the professor of meteorology. One example was the assumption that our region would see ‘murderous violent storms’. But there was no data showing this. ‘It all has a cultural, anthropological background’ . ‘If you sin, then you will be punished. And the punishment always takes on an environmental dimension which also included storms in the past. In former times it was God’s punishment. Today it’s punishment by Nature. Nature is to keep man in check. And for this we see idiotic films like ‘The Day After Tomorrow.”
With ‘snappy’ and short statements like ‘snow will be a thing of the past’, the loud speakers among the scientists are putting the credibility of science at stake.'”
Meh I’ve been saying science is a religion for years. The guy in the white lab coat replaced the guy in the flowing robes long time ago. The problem the public has is that it is very difficult to differentiate between usable science and speculative science. Usable science is what goes into making computers and cars and other idols we bow toward where speculative science comes up with, for lack of better terminology, Creation myths and a Doomsday myths.
Great line: “Scientists have been taking over the roles of medicine men and priests.”
What Science are we talking about here?
Science Science, or Political Science?
And, to my great disappointment, all four leader candidates in the recent Provincial election paid homage to “climate change”,comments ranging from it being the world’s foremost problem,to admitting it’s a “serious problem” that has to be addressed.
Skeptics versus the priests/propagandists of global warming is NOT “David vs Goliath”,it’s more David vs an army of Goliaths.
Until the day MSM outfits such as CBC change their message, the average citizen will still think AGW/CC is a serious problem because
“that nice Dr.Suzuki says it is”.
Maybe it’s time we started to take a look at the tactics of the environmental zealots,to see if there isn’t something of use to us.
…more like junk science, especially in matters concerning environment.
Its only a matter of time. Before the Environmentalist climate religion starts, throwing Female
Virgins onto ice flows, or Volcanoes to appease the gods of weather.
Die Welt —
// Hans von Storch said. ‘The climate pope tells us what has to be done, and for the people it’s: keep your mouths shut […] //
+++
The German press have the same incentives to fuzzify climate science issues, or to ignore them and explore diversions, as does the english press.
From a 2010 post in Klimalounge, discussing the German mag Der Spiegel, in which Han von Storch makes his now traditional pitch [ I see “pastor” has been promoted to “pope”] —
SPIEGEL defames some of the best scientists worldwide, who not least for this reason have become prime targets for the “climate skeptics”. If you look at publications in the three scientific top journals (Nature, Science, PNAS), the just 44-year-old Mike Mann has already published 9 studies there, Phil Jones 24 […]
In contrast, DER SPIEGEL always calls upon the same witness, the mathematician Hans von Storch, who has published only a single article in the prime journals mentioned (and that was faulty). But he says the politically wanted thing, even if without any supporting evidence from the scientific literature: in his view we can easily adapt to climate change. He also publicly accuses the vast majority of his colleagues who disagree with him of alarmism, calls them “prophets of doom” or “eco-activists” who indoctrinate the public. He also insinuates political or financial motives for disseminating horror scenarios. In this article he says things like “unfortunately, some of my colleagues behave like pastors, who present their results in precisely such a way that they’ll fit to their sermons”
+++
Storch goes on to instance his criticism, which is also not new & gets a mention in the 2010 post —
Die Welt —
But some of his colleagues in science like to use ‘stories that point to a catastrophe,’ said the professor of meteorology. One example was the assumption that our region would see ‘murderous violent storms’. But there was no data showing this. ‘It all has a cultural, anthropological background’ . ‘If you sin, then you will be punished.
Klimalounge 2010 —
Tropical storms
Under the subheading “The Myth of the Monster Storm” the SPIEGEL article reports on a “hurricane war” amongst US climate scientists:
“The alarmists, using the rhetoric of fiery sermons, warned that Katrina was only the beginning, and that we would soon see the advent of superstorms of unprecedented fury. Members of the more levelheaded camp were vehemently opposed to such predictions and insisted that there was no justification for such fears. ”
Sadly, no example for the “rhetoric of fiery sermons” is quoted. […]
Then a recent study from Nature Geoscience is cited which allegedly announces “the all-clear signal on the hurricane front” and which signifies “another setback for the IPCC”. This is because “the IPCC report warned that there would be more hurricanes in a greenhouse climate”. Let us simply quote from the abstract of the new study:
” Future projections based on theory and high-resolution dynamical models consistently indicate that greenhouse warming will cause the globally averaged intensity of tropical cyclones to shift towards stronger storms, with intensity increases of 2-11% by 2100. Existing modelling studies also consistently project decreases in the globally averaged frequency of tropical cyclones, by 6-34%. Balanced against this, higher resolution modelling studies typically project substantial increases in the frequency of the most intense cyclones, and increases of the order of 20% in the precipitation rate within 100 km of the storm centre. ”
Long story short, fewer but heavier tropical storms can be expected.
“In contrast, DER SPIEGEL always calls upon the same witness, the mathematician Hans von Storch, who has published only a single article in the prime journals mentioned (and that was faulty). But he says the politically wanted thing, even if without any supporting evidence from the scientific literature: in his view we can easily adapt to climate change,..”
In contrast,the CBC always calls upon the same witness, the geneticist David Susuki , who hasn’t published a single article in the prime journals. But he says the politically wanted thing, even if without any supporting evidence from the scientific literature: in his view we can’t adapt to climate change, we’ll have to adapt to him…
Heh. That’s a good one.
Suzuki doesn’t claim to be a climate scientist. He “left the bench” [as chemists put it] decades ago to become a television journalist.
As for the CBC, it ain’t true —
CBC Digital Archives looks at four decades of CBC’s climate change coverage
I guess the lesson is not to get your science from journalists.
“Could this be the worst tornado we’ve ever seen”
Piers Morgan to some AGW activist on CNN last night. The bodies in the rubble from the Oklahoma tornado hadn’t cooled and Piers Morgan is into the politics.