"Time for the mind"

After the far-reaching climate gate scandal (a comprehensive overview see eg FOCUS MONEY ) and the recent misinterpretation of glacier melt on the part of the "IPCC" ( see my previous blog post ) keeps us the science continually faced with new pods, which often only at second glance, as such, are evident. Three examples of the past three days, this should be clarified:

At 26.01. Direct spectrum published a message which read as: "Antarctic ozone hole prevented warming" . As it is now so suddenly that the media coverage to date almost entirely disappeared ozone hole. The text says only that the upgrading of the industry - away from CFC - soon wore fruit. However, a smaller and smaller ozone hole would have a negative impact on the climate, because it promoted the global warming! Shocking how far away the reality that our highly paid researchers to move into their reductionist causal chains now. Because CFCs was not proved until now as a villain (see zeitgeist-issue 1-2009 ), or the ozone hole as a man-made. It is also the latest measurements suggest that more than questionable whether there is any global warming , not to mention a connection between the "ozone hole" and "greenhouse effect" throughout. In view of this work attempts to explain how by Stefan Rahmstorf of the best known German climate research institute PIK, which maintains rigid as before in the Pro-Global Warming theory, almost helplessly, if you also take into account nor that according to the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE ) "Cold weather stations" were excluded from the climate data collection.

Case Two: About the Information Service Science . declared the Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research (WSL) at 1.27, "of manmade climate change, an additional release of the greenhouse gas CO ₂ from the terrestrial biosphere and the ocean causes - this is global warming stepped up. "The Swiss institution preaches while still uncritically the myth of anthropogenic global warming by using the" confirmed greenhouse gas "carbon dioxide, but indirectly, in an aside that release with a warming oceans, including CO _2. After all, oceans cover about 70% of the earth's surface and are thus most likely the most powerful by far Kohledioxidquelle on our planet. Climate analysis over longer periods, ie centuries show that the curve of Kohledioxidanteils in the atmosphere always follows the temperature curve and not vice versa, as one produced by the BBC documentary explained impressive ( zeitgeist reported ). Consequently, CO ₂ can not possibly be the trigger of a postulated warming.

Third example: The press release news agency said on 28.01. with a newer simulation at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology had shown that the human being but probably not until 1800 was climate warming. Amazingly, where one in science but firmly until recently ran out, the human heat the earth already For thousands of years . Once more shows that so-called facts and relationships are more speculative, is trying the more, the existing complexity to a few or even only a limited effect size (as in the case of the alleged climate killer CO _2). Science then becomes the playground of any subjective interpretations, their significance is not greater than that of a gardener on the same topic.

The difference is only then that the gardener no doctor or professor whose opinion carries and thus no nachbetet. Is a paradigm (here: the greenhouse effect and global warming) gained strength once it develops a momentum that new insights to the contrary formally locked out. A Power Point presentation , which was recently leaked to me, illustrates this dangerous trap to understand.

Critical thinking and questioning is so demanded, even - or maybe! - In statements of recognized scientists.

2 Comments on "Science in Chains: How climate scientists are lost in a paradigm"