German researchers’ dilemma over new attack on climate science

Exactly the same occurs in Italy, where some old scientists (including Nobel Prize and Senator Rubbia) published a strong attack to anthropogenic triggering of climate change. None of them published papers in the area of Earth Sciences, nor Environmental Engineering, let alone Climate.

The use of shaming and ostracism to persuade are political or rhetorical techniques, not scientific ones. It is good that the AfD are asked to the non-public events.

It is important for climate scientists to engage in debate refuting deniers... not so much with the intention of convincing the deniers that they are wrong (something that is unlikely to happen!), but with the purpose of ensuring that whenever deniers speak, the correct facts are also being presented so that the rest of the population are provided with good information on which to base their decisions.

We have anti-science radical leftists now dominating many fields in the arts, humanities, social sciences and education. As far as I know it is those who challenge them who are silenced. This is a big problem. Universities are now so far left they are incapable of objectivity or defending science. They are ideologically dominated institutions that actually care more for that ideology than science. For the record, there are plenty of scientists and non-scientists of all political persuasions (not far right) who have issues with specific points in mainstream climate science. Most remain silent because they know what will happen if they ask questions.

As an interested observer, climate study isn't my area, I find the concept of scientific 'consensus of opinion' difficult to accept. If each scientist has independently researched, experimented and confirmed their individual thesis, published it publicly and made it possible for others to examine and question then their input has merit, but all I see is club groupthink controlled by economic interests within and without the University community. Dr. Peter Ridd provides a good example of why so many dare not speak out about the lack of good science, especially when their long term observations and specific non-climate 'science' speciality knowledge runs counter to the 'consensus of opinion'.

If there is one person in the audience that is not a believer in the danger of vaccines or is not a climate change denier, a scientist must engage in the science illumination of facts. The issue is not to convince [those that are emotionally convinced that men are not responsible for CO2 increase or that vaccines cause autism] but to reassure those that have not taken a position yet that the scientific method is still the best way to understand nature.

So 'climate change deniers' are equated with the 'far right'. In this case climate scientists MUST challenge the deniers, or else the 'far right' will capture the agenda and discreditation of science will become yet another lethal bullet in the populist's armoury.

Climate warming is not yet "settled science", so wide agreement among climate scientist should not be expected nor should it be welcome. Climate science is not (and can never be) a "controlled-environment" laboratory science of the sort that enables wide agreement among i.e., LIGO scientists and laser scientists. Existing weather stations (measuring T, P, H, Wind velocity,, etc) do a pretty good job predicting next weeks weather, but it is absurd to be asking for yearly predictions, and even more so for the next decade.