Meteorologist Slams Climate Alarmists As ‘Desperate’, Scientifically Wrong’
High-profile Swiss meteorologist Jörg Kachelmann has penned a stinging commentary in the online Bayerischer Kurier concerning all the climate doomsday hysteria sweeping across Europe and warns history tells us such hysteria has never turned out well.
PIK’s “silly” science, doomsday prophets
The veteran meteorologist, who is convinced the planet is indeed warming due to man’s activities, worries that environmental groups have been getting away with falsehoods and how the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) is promoting “silly” science and “view themselves as the prophets of the imminent end of the world.”
One problem with all the über-alarmism, Kachelmann sees, is a tendency of people simply resigning because they’ve come to believe that nothing can be done to stop the coming doomsday, and so why bother trying.
He also sharply criticizes green activists who blame every extreme weather event on man-made climate change, writing that it is “desperate and scientifically completely wrong”.
Future scenarios as the present – bigger media bang!
One reason the activists have become so shrill, Kachelmann believes, is due in large part to the media’s willingness to run with every sensational story without an inkling of background checking.
“Since votes are to be won now, scientifically quite justifiable predictions for the future are quickly changed into the present because there’s a bigger bang. The charlatans are certain that this mischief will spread through the media at a time when most German states have largely abolished science education.”
“Whoring for clicks”… “Bullshit Sells”
“The collective disinformation unscientists meet up with a sad media situation, where the successful whoring for clicks is more important than even the smallest quantities of respectability. Stupid clicks sell,” says Kachelmann. “But that doesn’t matter to “Focus”, “Merkur” or the “Süddeutsche” [publications]. It still gets written because bullshit sells.”
Woodstoves, not cars, are worst polluters
Another hot issue in Germany is fine particle pollution. Here Kachelmann also sees policymakers stampeding down the wrong solution path, and are falsely putting most of the blame on automobiles:
“The exceedance of fine particles and other pollutants is almost exclusively due not to traffic, but to wood-burning stoves, which have recently multiplied in densely populated areas, because insane people claim that they are “ecological.”
Over recent years, the German government has been turning a blind eye to dirty wood-burning stoves – even supporting their use. Now towns and villages across Germany are filled with choking smoke from the supposedly climate-friendly burning of wood.
Read more at No Tricks Zone
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
T. C. Clark
| #
Questions? Was forest cut down to make way for wind farms and solar arrays? Was insect habitat destroyed by cutting down forest and does wind turbine blades kill insects as well as birds? Isn’t there a latitude where solar north of does not make it economically viable? Is there microscopic pollution contained in wood smoke….the kind that requires powerful microscopes to see and does it enter human lungs but not be breathed out? Why try to solve a problem before it is certain what the cause really is? Isn’t building windmills and solar a folly without adequate storage means? Isn’t it double folly to build when the cost of storage is prohibitive?
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Climatology learned its marrketing tactics from meteorology.
Meteorology is as bad as climatology.
Pretending to understand storms is the con job that meteorologists put forth:
Solving Tornadoes: Woke Meteorology
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn
Meteorologists are trained liars
James McGinn
Reply
jerry krause
| #
Hi James,
I have looked at the phase diagram of water as you suggested i should. And I have commented about what I saw. To date, I have not found your response to what I wrote in my comment to your comment to me.
Right now I do not remember to which posting our comments were made. But I am sure with effort I can find them. And I plan, if you do not respond here, that I will do just this and write an essay titled ‘The Phase Diagram of Water’ and the image will the that of the actual phase diagram of water to which you must be referring as your observational evidence that the atmosphere has no individual water molecules in it. And included in this essay will be your comment to me and my response to this comment, to which you had not responded.
I will do this so readers of PSI can see for themselves what your science of water is built upon.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jerry:
I have not found your response to what I wrote
James:
I didn’t see your comment but I am sure it is inane, meaningless.
Jerry, intellectual honesty is something that must be practiced. You can’t go your whole life believing nonsense and relaying your convoluted, nonsense beliefs to others and then suddenly develop intellectual honesty at 78 years of age.
You are a dishonest fool and dishonest fools don’t change.
Solving Tornadoes: Woke Meteorology
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn
Reply
Brian James
| #
The sun controls the Earths Climate.
Dec 4, 2019 5 New Discoveries from NASA’s Parker Solar Probe
NASA’s Parker Solar Probe mission has returned unprecedented data from near the Sun, culminating in new discoveries published on Dec. 4, 2019, in the journal Nature. Among the findings are new understandings
https://youtu.be/ReQAUocScw0
Reply
T. C. Clark
| #
Well, Jeremy Corbyn is a meteorologist and he once made a wager that the winter would be unusually cold and won the wager. Jeremy is a pretty good meteorologist and I believe he realizes that weather is a chaotic complex system that cannot be predicted very far into the future with any high degree of certainty.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jeremy Corbyn is a politiician. It is his brother Piers Corbyn who is a meteorologists
Meteorology’s Storm theory is propaganda. Most meteorologists realize this and they just play dumb, just like how climatologists fall silent when anybody questions the poorly considered assumptions of their model.
Meteorologists (including Piers Corbyn) never discuss the details of their model of storms just like climatologists never discuss details of CO2 forcing. And this is because their model is really not science
Real science is always happy to discuss details.
Reply
T. C. Clark
| #
Yes, I would not vote for Jeremy as a pol but Piers gets my vote as a meteorologist….every profession can be criticised, no?
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Ever notice that it is just about impossible to get a climate scientist to discuss the details of their GHG climate change scenario? Of course we all know why, they are just pretending to understand what is, in all actuality, unintelligible BS. Well, the same is true for meteorlogists when it comes to their theory of storms, the convection model of storm theory. The last thing in the world any of them want is for the public to realize that they don’t really understand the physics of storms. But the fact is that they really don’t understand the physics of storms (I go into considerable detail on this subject in one of my podcasts. See link below.)
A few years ago I attempted to engage Piers Corbyn in a discussion/debate about meteorology’s convection model of storm theory. He didn’t take the bait. Meteorologists–including Piers Corbyn–have been lying to the public and feeding us plainly irrational models for almost 200 years now.
Meteorologists and climatologists all have the same training. This means they are all skilled at the conversational aspects of science–the aspects of the science that the public finds most convincing. They don’t do experiments and even if they did they collectively refuse to define their model so that it is testable. Accordingly they can always pretend that their model is so good that it is irrefutable. Of course the reality is that they got their collective heads so far up their collective asses that there is zero chance their model will ever be tested or even disputed.
As with climatologists, the last thing a meteorologists wants–including Piers Corbyn–is to get into a debate/discussion with a real scientist.
Solving Tornadoes: Woke Meteorology
https://anchor.fm/james-mcginn
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Reply