righteous citizens, and that is probably the vast majority, are prepared to swallow everything that science serves up, in the belief that science is on the straight path of truth-finding. They are not aware that they are on the famous wooden path themselves. In reality, as in all areas, there are hardworking and lazy, talented and untalented, honest and dishonest actors in science.
Research and fraud are not mutually exclusive. Fake science has always existed, and even today, total fraud is still practiced unscrupulously. Therefore, the opinion that there is a second scientific study besides the result, which would prove exactly the opposite, was not taken out of thin air. But this apparent paradox is easy to explain: there is good and bad science, ergo good and bad interpretations of the research results.
Much of what is sold as science by the creators of knowledge is simply pure nonsense. «Anyone who doesn’t know the truth is just a fool. But whoever knows her and calls her a lie is a criminal »(Berthold Brecht 1898-1956). For me, exactly the same judgment applies to those who falsify and bend the facts to present a predetermined result as true, proven and irrefutable, and even try to impose it on others. This can go so far that a crooked thesis is turned into a dogma by an interested party, and that those who report unwanted doubts are simply put to the media, as is the case in the current climate debate. Then the paths of science and the basic ethical principles for humans are determined by puppet players in the background. This is a prime example of pseudoscience, so it only appears to be scientific.
In real science, a thesis that needs to be proven is open to results, can be controlled, discussed controversially, dropped or replaced by another, and all without the dark penchant for fame, honor, recognition and title to harvest. Prof. Manfred Spitzer puts it this way: «To solve our problems, we need experts – doctors and engineers, lawyers and economists, physicists, chemists and biologists, social scientists and humanities scholars. All of these are characterized by the fact that they have a solid knowledge in their field, an overview in a subject area that allows them to do the right or appropriate thing in many cases immediately and otherwise quickly generate even more specialist knowledge in order to then achieve the draw correct conclusions, decide and act. »
Pseudoscience is about “proving” a politically, economically or strategically “desired” hypothesis. The result to be achieved is specified here, and the “evidence” runs in a diametrically opposite direction. Here, as one might expect, data and facts are not first collected and studied, and then conclusions are drawn. No, the data and facts are tailored to the result to be achieved. It is deliberately falsified, eliminated, deliberately misinterpreted, played down … everything that doesn’t fit is adjusted or simply planed away so that the chips fly.
In summary, this can be expressed as follows: In real science, which also deserves this name, research is open-ended and unselfish, with the sole aim of promoting knowledge. In pseudoscience, an entire arsenal of trickery tries to “prove” a predetermined result with the aim of enabling the “clients” to make a profit. It is the opposite of increasing knowledge. This is deliberate fraud and deliberate misleading of the public.
The diversity of doctrine is disappearing in favor of uniform doctrines that researchers are introduced during their training and that ultimately degenerate into an article of faith. What is devastating for real research and real science is the fact that there are hardly any university institutes or research institutions that can do without funds from industry and the private sector. The government grants are simply too low to carry out extremely complex research at all. This is especially true in physics and biotechnology. Then the inevitable question arises: “Tell me who will finance you and I will tell you whose song you sing”. In the areas of medicine and pharmacology, there is a particularly high number of tricks. The media are often exclusively on the side of pseudoscience because it simply offers more sensational potential and a larger playing field for self-staging, and this quickly leads to a one-sided and narrow-minded misinformation, which the politicians then take to the glue if they do it have not initiated themselves.
Politicians have mastered the art of debate, forging alliances and tricking the political opponent, which guarantees their political survival, but rarely know the real world and generally understand even less about science. Politicians are dependent on the mainstream media, and those who dare to react skeptically to the disinformation spread by the media with a lot of tam-tam are at risk. Those who deal with these media will be mercilessly executed publicly. Everyone knows that, and for this very reason nothing or very little happens in many cases, and if so, with great delay. Thomas Mann (1875-1955) was of the following opinion: “You don’t need power to tell the truth”. I add: especially no media highness!
Professors are paid with public money for exactly the opposite of scientific knowledge transfer. Advisory institutions cover up and fog up instead of clarifying, and non-partisan commissions degenerate into market cries and lobbying.
Politicians who let all of this happen, be it out of interest, ignorance, indifference or fear of the media described above (all equally punishable) are complicit in these unsustainable conditions, which can currently be observed closely in the climate debate. In this debate, as has already been described in general, there is real science which is diametrically opposed to pseudoscience. So two different bells, of which the second is ringing on alarm by the interested media, while the first is prevented from ringing with brute force. These are conditions that are otherwise only known from dictatorships.
The “climatologists” who do not have a say. Climatology is the study of the physical processes and laws in the earth’s atmosphere. It belongs to the geosciences, which as a “university” subject are mostly affiliated with the institutes for geophysics or the respective faculty for physics. They are the most habilitated experts to talk about the climate. They try to find the truth and then to inform society and politics through specialist literature.
The “climate scientists” act quite differently. There is no university degree in climate science anywhere. They are self-proclaimed scientists who observe long-term developments and hereby try to predict environmental developments for the future. Scientific studies mix here with social issues and political frameworks. Politics are in the foreground, and pseudoscience only serves as a tool to assert the “good” that is viewed as such. Woe to anyone who tries to mutiny against this approach.
Philippe Verdier, weather announcer at France 2, was threatened with dismissal for his expressed skepticism about the climate and was publicly insulted by a later presidential candidate as “connard”. Dr. Rex J. Fleming had to come to Europe to get his book entitled “The Rise and Fall of the Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climate Change” printed. This IPPC-critical book was withdrawn from the market by Springer Verlag after its publication. This seems to be the new way of burning books and is inevitably reminiscent of a particularly dark chapter in our history. Simply disgraceful! I myself have had very sobering experiences with an earlier article entitled “Climate superstition with the sale of indulgences”. I have sent this text to all relevant Luxembourg print and screen media and am excited to see how I feel this time.
No geophysicist was invited to the last climate meeting in Madrid. You just keep the best experts at bay, you’d rather only discuss things with everybody. Instead, 156 Guinean climate days were there; there were 406 in Katowice. This diverse group of climate tourists then gives “expert” advice about the future of our planet, and majority decisions are then taken. What a mockery! It is not the majority that determines whether something is true, but evidence. Albert Einstein (1879-1955) put it this way: “With good arguments and evidence, one critic is enough”. But they are not allowed in the World Climate Council.
Through this targeted disinformation by the IPCC and its followers, the activist Greta is on everyone’s lips with her end-time and redemption movement, but hardly anyone has ever heard of the “Heidelberg Appeal”. This is a media-secret call signed by over 4,000 scientists, including 74 Nobel laureates, expressing concern about the emergence of an irrational ideology, expressing skepticism about climate science, and warning governments and authorities Make decisions based on manipulated temperature data and pseudoscientific arguments. The “Oregon Petition” with 31,000 signatures (9030 of whom have a doctorate in natural sciences) is also covered up, which is exactly the opposite of the opinion of the IPCC. These are just two briefs from a number of similar critical statements based on tens of thousands of studies by reputable researchers.
Poor world, where are you headed?
Dr Henri Hosch