tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post5365868217657961602..comments2023-08-07T16:41:49.660+02:00Comments on Die Klimazwiebel: HvS Antworten auf den Vorgang "Bengtsson"eduardohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17725131974182980651noreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-19508534523448291382014-06-10T10:41:58.260+02:002014-06-10T10:41:58.260+02:00"2) Beklagt, daß die Diskussion, gerade auch ..."2) Beklagt, daß die Diskussion, gerade auch in der Klimawissenschaft allzu stark unter einer Politisierung leidet, und hier neue Kommunikationskanäle zu öffnen seien."<br /><br />Here is a reminder of how that turned out:<br /><a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/16/climategate-ii-scientific-community-accused-muzzling-dissent-on-global-warming/" rel="nofollow">Fox New: "Climategate II? Scientific community accused of muzzling dissent on global warming"</a>.Lars Karlssonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06158469980966810882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-85253422580572934472014-06-08T22:22:24.219+02:002014-06-08T22:22:24.219+02:00Since what Eli wrote/translated appears to have be...Since what Eli wrote/translated appears to have been commented on here in perhaps not the friendliest way, allow, even at this late date, the Rabett to write a few words. <br /><br />L’Affaire Bengtsson was all over the Climate Blog world and even penetrated into the real media. What Eli and the bunnies need is perspective. While this flood appears to have come from nowhere, it came from Sweden, and has been percolating there for a few years, but, of course, in Swedish. <br /><br />There, IEHO, is the crux of the matter. Bengtsson functions in different linguistic and national worlds. It was first in Sweden that his political and science policy worlds came together, but even there, his writings in the national media, while in part skeptical of the IPCC consensus were not outside of the 97%, or at least not much. At conferences, he went further, and as a commenter on the blogs (esp of the Stockholm Initiative) he joined a far right wing view of the world and his colleagues that was despicable. (See, for example <a href="http://rabett.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/laffaire-bengtsson.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>, <a href="http://rabett.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/they-are-mad-as-hell-and-not-going-to.html" rel="nofollow">here</a> and <a href="http://uppsalainitiativet.blogspot.se/2014/05/lennart-bengtsson-and-his-media-gambit.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>.<br /><br />The explosion about Bengtsson's joining the GWPF, should not have surprised any speaker of Swedish or reader of Swedish climate blogs, but, of course, it was a shock to those stuck in the English (and evidently German) worlds. <br /><br />In this regard HvS's perception that Bengtsson<br /><br />"2) Beklagt, daß die Diskussion, gerade auch in der Klimawissenschaft allzu stark unter einer Politisierung leidet, und hier neue Kommunikationskanäle zu öffnen seien."<br /><br />is a bit naive. Maybe more than a bit.<br /><br />Best<br />EliEliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-44629248817341559172014-05-22T17:32:40.617+02:002014-05-22T17:32:40.617+02:00@ S.Hader
"Interessant, nutzen Sie dort ein ...@ S.Hader<br /><br />"Interessant, nutzen Sie dort ein anderes Pseudonym?"<br /><br />Finde ich unverschämt. Genau wie die Spekulationen über Bengtsson.<br /><br />MfG<br /><br />Stefan Otto Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-41065631647539553742014-05-20T23:31:37.202+02:002014-05-20T23:31:37.202+02:00@Stefan Otto
"Machen Sie es denn? Beispiele?...@Stefan Otto<br /><br /><i>"Machen Sie es denn? Beispiele? Bevor Sie dies von mir fordern."</i><br /><br />Nochmal: <i>"Bei dem Beispiel, was Sie gebracht haben, hatte ich vor Ort schon geschrieben, dass man sich mit solchen Äußerungen zurückhalten sollte."</i><br /><br /><br /><i>"Gegenüber einigen Mitgliedern von eike bin ich durchaus auch kritisch eingestellt und habe das schon zum Ausdruck gebracht."</i><br /><br />Interessant, nutzen Sie dort ein anderes Pseudonym? <br /><br /><br />@Karl Kuhn: Dann sollten Sie vielleicht in aller Ruhe meine Fragen in #44 nochmal durchlesen. :)<br /><br />MfG<br />S.HaderS.Hadernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-86014087682787750142014-05-20T22:40:19.404+02:002014-05-20T22:40:19.404+02:00@hader
lesen Sie meine Aussage noch mal ganz in R...@hader<br /><br />lesen Sie meine Aussage noch mal ganz in Ruhe ...: <br /><br />"1. Unverschämtheiten sind unschön, aber KEINE Bedrohungen." (war an Otto UND Sie gerichtet)<br /><br />... bevor Sie die nächste offene Tür einrennen.Karl Kuhnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-17719810245469688772014-05-20T22:10:41.661+02:002014-05-20T22:10:41.661+02:00@ S.Hader
"Treten Sie im Gegenzug genauso Au...@ S.Hader<br /><br />"Treten Sie im Gegenzug genauso Aussagen entgegen, die andere etablierte Wissenschaftler mit Schmähungen angreifen?"<br /><br />Machen Sie es denn? Beispiele? Bevor Sie dies von mir fordern. <br /><br />Gegenüber einigen Mitgliedern von eike bin ich durchaus auch kritisch eingestellt und habe das schon zum Ausdruck gebracht.<br /><br />MfG<br /><br />Stefan OttoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-87172421639763845082014-05-20T19:43:33.410+02:002014-05-20T19:43:33.410+02:00@Stefan Otto: "Klar es gibt auch Verfehlungen...@Stefan Otto: <i>"Klar es gibt auch Verfehlungen auf Seiten der Skeptiker. Nur das Rechtfertigt nicht die Hetze, welche gegen Bengtsson betrieben wird. Das haben Sie dabei vergessen."</i><br /><br />Ich halte die oben genannten Beispiele alle für Verfehlungen, egal aus welcher Richtung sie kommen. Genau das meinte ich mit, wer A sagt, muss auch B sagen. Bei dem Beispiel, was Sie gebracht haben, hatte ich vor Ort schon geschrieben, dass man sich mit solchen Äußerungen zurückhalten sollte. Treten Sie im Gegenzug genauso Aussagen entgegen, die andere etablierte Wissenschaftler mit Schmähungen angreifen?<br /><br /><i>"Schlimm finde ich auch, dass von Seiten der Klimaschützer die von Bengtsson geschilderten Anfeindungen gegen ihn in Abrede gestellt werden und verharmlost werden."</i><br /><br />Ist es schon ein Verharmlosen, wenn man sagt, dass man die genauen Begründungen und Texte kennen muss, um sich überhaupt ein Urteil erlauben zu können?<br /><br />S.Hadernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-84359457956694505832014-05-20T19:38:28.863+02:002014-05-20T19:38:28.863+02:00@Karl Kuhn: "1. Unverschämtheiten sind unschö...@Karl Kuhn: <i>"1. Unverschämtheiten sind unschön, aber keine Bedrohungen."</i><br /><br />Dann sagen Sie doch bitte, was der von Stefan Otto zitierte Abschnitt für eine Bedrohung darstellt und in wie weit er sich qualitativ von den Zitaten aus #34 unterscheidet. <br /><br /><i>"2. Das Gejammer und langatmige gegenseitige Beschuldigen hier hat Kindergartenniveau."</i><br /><br />Und <b>einseitiges</b> Beschuldigen ist niveauvoller?<br />S.Hadernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-72502173075934497652014-05-20T18:31:41.422+02:002014-05-20T18:31:41.422+02:00Hi,
Menschenskind, das ganze is totale Kinderka.....Hi,<br /><br />Menschenskind, das ganze is totale Kinderka.., Lennard hätte sich bewusst sein müssen, dass wenn er in Richtung Pseudowissenschaft (nix anderes is GWPF wenn man mal neutral rangeht) geht, dass seine damaligen Kollegen sich von ihn distanzieren werden bzw. eine Menge Support verliert. Das er nun noch ein Rückzieher von GWPF macht find ich persönlich lächerlich, da es wie woher schon gesagt klar war wie reagiert wird.<br /><br />Auch den Skandal um den pösen Satz des Referee kann ich nicht verstehen, wenn das Paper wirklich rubbish ist, dann gehörts eben ausortiert, man möge sich gerne die Mängel ansehen die der Referee ankreidete.<br /><br /><br />Was sehen wir mal wieder, ein küstlichen Skandal um nix.<br /><br />So nun möge man mich für mein Statement erschlagenAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-36922867974271809702014-05-20T16:43:39.742+02:002014-05-20T16:43:39.742+02:00243
lennart bengtsson
2014/05/13 kl. 09:21
*241
A...<i>243<br />lennart bengtsson<br />2014/05/13 kl. 09:21<br />*241<br /><br />All of these strange reports should preferably be in the recycle bin. They do not have much to do with science. If the "klimatvetenskapen" was serious would be in rather than to try and understand why the increase DOES NOT have speeded up over the last 21 years, and why it was the same great 1920-1950 ( according to IPCC report) as well as to the increase already started around 1850. This research should be about. What we are seeing is rather a scientific decline which Research Council and universities should deal with. If this is not done soon, we will get a scientific crisis. <br /><br />264<br />lennart bengtsson<br />2014/05/13 kl. 17:05<br />Mats G *263<br /><br />It is precisely this which is the most serious aspect of today's "climate and environment policy" in several respects ignore science. The most important thing is to have the 'public opinion' which is not a special concern of the public perception and thus be considered as politically correct. It is precisely for this reason that society tends to reject knowledge that nuclear energy and genetic crop production because the political people do not dare to challenge the serious prejudices which thrive in society. <br /><br /><br />308<br />Lennart bengtsson<br />2014/05/15 kl. 07:56<br /><br />Just want to make it clear that the reason that I decided to leave GWPF was that I was subjected to a veritable storm of criticism by a number of colleagues because the GWPF in their eyes was a "förnekarorganisation" .I agree on no way this view even if I am in many respects has a slightly different view than GWPF when it comes to purely scientific issues.<br />The reason that I chose to resign was that I realized that there was not any opportunities to contribute to a more civilised debate based on objectivity and facts. Special situation was so excited in the United States to a colleague had requested that his name removed from a joint publication on climatic only for the reason that I was with and associates of what was perceived as a "förnekarorganisation" and it was thought that this could affect the assessment of the part. <br /><br />I solved this problem by yourself pull away my name. Until further notice, may I continue anyway but has received a great deal of support of people and other colleagues across the world. The secretary-general with a number of other climate scientists is that I have a different dynamic and more positive than an ambitious and believe that the climate issue has been exaggerated in the debate and in so doing have obvious religious overtones. I am deeply concerned about as I said klimatvetenskapens integrity, and of the attitude to extreme views (Radikalhandlung) as we saw in the DN debate last Saturday.</i><br /><br />YephAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-81002212837464645992014-05-20T16:41:42.869+02:002014-05-20T16:41:42.869+02:00212
lennart bengtsson
2014/05/12 kl. 16:32
Bengt 1...<i>212<br />lennart bengtsson<br />2014/05/12 kl. 16:32<br />Bengt 186<br />+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++<br />2011 WAS CO2 emissions 4.75 tonnes/person and the same time in China 5.92 tonnes/person. (IEA statistics, 2013) The total Swedish emission is approximately 42 Mton or more or less equal to net growth in Swedish forests. In addition, net exports of electricity of 10 TWh/year, which would require 14Mton coal which in turn would generate approximately 51 Mton CO2 VALUES. 2012 Sweden exported 21TWh per year and this year it is certainly more than 10 TWh. The best Sweden can do, therefore, is to build in the first place nuclear power and export surplus electricity sales alternatively produce services that require much electricity and therefore need not be made elsewhere with electricity produced with coal. A further extension of hydropower is also positive for the balance all wind and solel from Germany, for instance. <br /><br />For Sweden to build out vindel hardly seem sensible except perhaps in the north where the wind is less correlated with the wind on the continent (this as a result of vädersystemens structure and size). To build out of nuclear power is the only meaningful way to reduce fossilanvändningen. As far as climate impact has so far been very little heating with 0.8 °C with an increase in växthusgasforcing at approximately 3W/m2. If warming continues at this rate, we will have approximately 1.2 °C if 25 years i.e. when växthusgasforcingen corresponds to a CO2 doubling or 3.7W/m2. Any increase of extreme väderhändelse cannot be demonstrated with the damage of extremväder and earthquakes have in large followed GDP. In a warmer climate you can also expect that these storms will become less intense. Just consider that the wind blows most of winter and autumn. As has been said, that the only effective way in my view to actually reduce fossilanvändningen is to invest in nuclear power. Listen to Hans Blix who knows what he is talking about. <br />In conclusion it would be nice to read an article in the DN where there were figures also and not just options regarding derivative. </i><br /><br />YephAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-40145965980220545882014-05-20T16:40:13.340+02:002014-05-20T16:40:13.340+02:00136
lennart bengtsson
2014/05/11 kl. 22:04
+++++++...<i>136<br />lennart bengtsson<br />2014/05/11 kl. 22:04<br />++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++<br />I find it increasingly difficult to understand the Swedish debate on climate change. For the first participating hardly any expert meteorologist or klimatolog other than in exceptional cases. The scientific reports that deals with the observable climate, exposure conditions, temperature, water and havsis and Landis is well documented in a series of reports summarized by the IPCC and similar for the last 35 years. There is hardly any indications that these data are not reliable. <br /><br />What we have observed is indicated a weak but in large continuous heating as seen over time scales of a few decades in large has followed the increase in växthusgasforcingen. It is obvious that this must be followed which is also with the extensive observation systems that are now available. It is, however, important to realize that we do not know when the long climate system well enough to now propose concrete measures without even trying to put this in a global context. In the strange DN-appeal require measures of a totalitarian nature, which would be justified in a state of war is absolutely crazy with view on the impact that this would have not least for the economy as a whole. <br /><br />The problem is that the signatories have not understood the nature of the problem, which is understandable when none of these are dealing with climate modeling but has its expertise on completely other areas. Judgment is in large fearful and concerned citizens who seems to believe that a simulation is that a calculation of an approaching asteroid. This is just not the case but should be seen as a kind of evaluation of the future climate. Error varies by a factor of 3 which in this context may be seen as a best guess. <br /><br />Based on the empirical data is also the climatic has so far been observed ( if we assume that the whole of the observed subjectively depends on greenhouse gases) approximately 0.3 °C/Watt/m2. This means that when växthusgasforcingen has reached 3.7 Watts/m2, (i.e. , doubling of forcingen compared with the advent) ( It is now approximately 3 Watts/m2) so should the temperature rise to 1.1 °C. This is likely to occur in 25 years. This is a value that is based on the observations and is, of course, uncertain when it assumes that all observed heating depends on greenhouse gas emissions. If it were to be so, as also argued, that aerosols brakes warming sa becomes temperature greater if we cease aerosolutsläppen. <br /><br />Such an assumption is in klimatmodellerna and is a cause of these gives a greater heating. In order to come up with a sustainable solution in the long term, there are hardly any options on a global scale other than heavy build out of nuclear power. It is, therefore, regrettable that environmentalists mainly in Europe and the USA has done everything in its power to combat this. This is, however, not the case in other parts of the world that Hans Blix recently reported. Renewable energy sources which do not of course is sustainable can only give limited contribution on a global scale during the next 50 years which we realize if it is the very least serious and shown in the report World Energy Council did at the end of last year. <br /><br />The main reason is the lack of energy density as well as the large variation in time and space. By 2050, fossil energy to dominate when there are no opportunities to build out alternative energy sources more quickly in the incredible amount needed. To create a extremsamhälle of Sweden may satisfy some people in the same way as some people saw their hope to communism in the 1920s and in a second romantic wave in the 1970s, So this is of little help for the rest of the world that does not take these strange dreams seriously then they have to live in the real world.</i><br /><br />YephAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-72305276588183643572014-05-20T16:38:35.863+02:002014-05-20T16:38:35.863+02:0072
lennart bengtsson
2014/05/11 kl. 09:18
*67
Chi...<i>72<br />lennart bengtsson<br />2014/05/11 kl. 09:18<br />*67<br /><br />China is working intensively to solve their environmental problems. Sweden has virtually no environmental problems today to worry about. However, there are number of which are engaged in a deputy suffering in this way experience a higher ethical satisfaction and wish to see that the Swedish environmental problems would be much worse than they are. The best these people can do in my opinion is to invest their energy and passion on something which really gives results and improve people's lives on this earth. <br /><br />This is the best way to support research and other activities in the first instance is transfererbara and can easily be established where they are really needed and genetic crop production, safer nuclear reactors and small-scale systems based on solar energy and heat pumps as well as methane gas from waste. A factor that must be taken into account is the extensive urbanisation not least in the developing countries with jättestäder which requires power plants with high concentration. This we can only cope with today fossil energy and nuclear energy.</i><br /><br />Yeph Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-26370143621310886382014-05-20T16:36:31.934+02:002014-05-20T16:36:31.934+02:00On the swedish blog Mister Lennart Bengtsson has e...On the swedish blog Mister Lennart Bengtsson has explained his views in some more swedish comments (I've translated by machine). They may explain his reasons a little bit more precisely:<br /><br /><i>58<br />lennart Bengtsson<br />2014/05/19 kl. 16:31<br /><br />Climate change policy has occupied political wing armed groups have become klimataktivister and the corresponding right-wing groups have taken an opposite setting. My first attempt to depoliticise klimatforskningen has failed, but I have not given up. Only those who never try to avoid a failure. We can only hope that the Austrian professor does not get its way. But if this is so, I ask to be faced with a exekutationspatrull with the support of my CV and not burned live on pyres. <br /><br />65<br />lennart bengtsson<br />2014/05/11 kl. 07:22<br /><br /><br />I agree with the title of the part is particularly unfortunate since the words "banned" has an extremely negative connotations in the English language. I belong to a generation which read Selma Lagerlöf - authoress that even today's Swedes should read, Perhaps even journalists in the country and headline writers point to when it comes to the basic idea of the letter as is, of course, the actual Swedish greenhouse gas emissions are negligible and to large parts practically resolved especially if you include nettoackumulationen in vegetation. <br /><br />Our electricity is already fossilfri and the wind power installed in recent years not required in Sweden but are exported. Hopefully it provides a profit on the basis of the contribution that we all give to be electricity bills, Money that could be used to build housing or other needed<br />global emissions is large then we now soon is 7.5 billion people, but it does not necessarily mean that the impact on the climate is great. So far, the global warming only amounted to 0.8 °C since the end of the 1800s and is in the near imperceptible compared with the natural klimatvariationerna. <br />Extreme weather conditions have not increased according to the detailed meteorological studies that have been carried out. During the 1930s was the bl a more extreme heat in Sweden with 37° in Uppsala, Sweden on 9 July 1933. Storms do not have become more frequent and more intense. Not even we have seen more extreme hurricanes. Damage caused by extremväder as well as earthquakes have increased in pace, but GDP and is a result of increased population and more infrastructure. This is a serious but not triggered by an increased Swedish självspäkning or reduced CO2-emissions but by better planning and safer buildings. It is also wise not to settle in vulnerable areas. It is a fact that storms and tempest does not necessarily need to be more frequent in a warmer climate bl a kommert our own vinterstormar becomes less sharp in a milder climate because it is temperature that drives these storms and not the temperature. <br /> High-voltage power lines. Much would reduce my concern if they could allow its sense and wisdom prevail and refrain from today's popular fundamentalist action without thought, sans and moderation. Perhaps it would be better to give Christianity a new chance before the new klimatreligion has completely grown over our head. <br /></i> <br /><br /><br /><br />YephAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-3137132306259669942014-05-20T16:25:44.532+02:002014-05-20T16:25:44.532+02:00Alarmist blogs often try to silence or ridicule di...<br />Alarmist blogs often try to silence or ridicule dissenting ideas. Having tried to understand the Moon-hoax-debate by reading through alarmist forums, I realized that non-alarmists have very often been banned from those blogs and forums. The reasons brought forward by blog-administrators were the following (mostly ridiculous) accusations:<br /><br />a) Gish Gallop<br /><br /><i>(the debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of small arguments that their opponent cannot possibly answer or address each one in real time.)</i><br /><br />b) Trolling <br /><br /><i>(trolling' is the anti-social act of causing of interpersonal conflict and shock-value controversy online... trolling is purposely sowing hatred, bigotry, racism, misogyny, or just simple bickering between others. Trolls themselves are emotionally-immature users who thrive in any environment where they are allowed to make public comments...)</i><br /><br />c) Sock puppet <br /><br /><i>(is an online identity used for purposes of deception. ... originally referred to a false identity ... pretending to be another person. The term now includes other misleading uses of online identities, such as those created to praise, defend or support a person or organization, or to circumvent a suspension or ban from a website.)</i> <br /><br />d) Dunning Kruger<br /><br /><i>(This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their ineptitude.)</i><br /><br />The first climate-alarmists I met on german forums, some 20 years ago, used exactly these tactics. In fact my very first alarmist contact on the internet explained me, if I ever used the word "hockey stick" again, she would leave the forum. I didn't know what they were talking about.<br /><br />Trolling and sock-puppeting are the new reasons to ban dissenting writers on alarmist blogs. <b>They even delete all their past comments.</b><br /><br />All these techniques are very effective to silence everyone who tries to prove errors in the reasoning of the blog dictators. Alarmist bloggers are the ones who are gish-galloping and trolling, but they accuse their dissenters of doing this.<br /><br />Here are some nice pieces I've read on "De staat van het klimaat"blog (Bengtsson resigns from the GWPF):<br /><br /><i>"I find it very unfortunate that you consciously and willingly are aiding these old, white males in their efforts to maintain the laissez-faire system that brought them their wealth"<br /><br />"How Eli enjoys the wailing of the victim bullies. McIntyre goes full Ustae and Erren defends him. Oh denial, denial, where is your stink."<br /><br />"I think it is also clear to anyone that the organisation is run by old, white males, a group that generally has conservative tendencies."<br /><br />"is pure concern trolling. The whole Bengtsson storm in a teacup isn't about the climate science community damaging itself (we don't know how many sent what and how to Bengtsson), but about the fake skeptic and policy delayer community spinning it that way through classical concern trolling."<br /><br />"climate revisionists like you effectively deny that CO2 is a GHG."<br /><br />"This battle is not about left vs right (a divide&conquer tactic), but about young vs old and rich vs not-rich."<br /><br />"ClimateBall rules are you can't troll your own blog." </i><br /><br />Yeph<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-61274195551476202742014-05-20T13:33:57.451+02:002014-05-20T13:33:57.451+02:00@ S.Hader
Klar es gibt auch Verfehlungen auf Seit...@ S.Hader<br /><br />Klar es gibt auch Verfehlungen auf Seiten der Skeptiker. Nur das Rechtfertigt nicht die Hetze, welche gegen Bengtsson betrieben wird. Das haben Sie dabei vergessen. <br /><br />Schlimm finde ich auch, dass von Seiten der Klimaschützer die von Bengtsson geschilderten Anfeindungen gegen ihn in Abrede gestellt werden und verharmlost werden.<br /><br />Zudem möchte ich darauf hinweisen, dass auch aus den Climategate-Mails hervorgeht wie kritische Klimawissenschaftler von der "Gemeinde" ausgegrenzt werden. Ich kann gerne Beispiele nennen. Hans v. Storch war u.a. ein Betroffener. Studien von ihm sollten z.B. aus dem IPCC-Bericht rausgehalten werden: “… why show it in IPCC?” Selbiges hat jetzt Bengtsson erfahren. Das ist für mich nicht akzeptabel. <br /><br />MfG<br /><br />Stefan OttoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-72752150116722984272014-05-20T11:13:44.977+02:002014-05-20T11:13:44.977+02:00@ Stefan Otto, Hader
1. Unverschämtheiten sind un...@ Stefan Otto, Hader<br /><br />1. Unverschämtheiten sind unschön, aber keine Bedrohungen. <br /><br />2. Das Gejammer und langatmige gegenseitige Beschuldigen hier hat Kindergartenniveau. Karl Kuhnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-29060677370025948722014-05-20T09:49:47.332+02:002014-05-20T09:49:47.332+02:00"Mich wundert es nicht, dass Bengtsson sich b...<i>"Mich wundert es nicht, dass Bengtsson sich bedroht fühlt, wenn ich solche Kommentare lesen ......."</i><br /><br />Sehr geehrter Stefan Otto, schlimm genug, dass es solche Fälle gibt. Ich hatte meine Meinung zu diesem Kommentar gleich dahinter gesetzt und distanziere mich von solchen Äußerungen. Jedoch ohne das Ganze relativieren zu wollen, wer A sagt, muss auch B sagen. Es gibt zahllose Beispiele in ähnlich krasser Form in deutschsprachigen Klimadiskussionsforen. Von den englischsprachigen ganz zu schweigen. Ein paar Bespiele gefällig?<br /><br />Über die DENA: <i>“Parasit, Lügner und Abzocker wie der Rest der Energiewender, diese rot-grüne Mißgeburt”</i><br /><br />Über Stefan Rahmstorf: <i>“Und das MUSS Herr Rahmsdorf wissen. Er ist also ein Lügner und Scharlatan, wenn er die Gefahr eines Versiegens des Golfstroms mit diesem Präzedenzfall begründet”</i><br /><br />Über Rajendra Pachauri: <i>“Er ist damit, was von Skeptikern immer vermutet wurde: Ein dreister Lügner.”</i><br /><br />Wirklich nur eine kleine Auswahl. Es gebe als mehr als genügend Gründe, warum sich auch führende Klimaforscher und Organisationen bedroht fühlen könnten. Und jetzt sagen Sie bitte nicht, dass Sie von solchen Zitaten bisher nichts gewusst haben. Man findet sie ganz schnell über Google, wenn man die entsprechenden Stichwörter eingibt. Und man erlebt sie jeden Tag, wenn man mit offenen Augen durch die Internet-Communitys geht. Es ehrt Sie sehr, wenn Sie Herrn Bengtsson vor solchen Kommentaren schützen wollen, aber dann sagen Sie auch B, und nicht nur A, wenn es kein einseitiges Statement für mehr Anstand im Netz sein soll. Danke.<br />S.Hadernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-80160028226903829382014-05-19T23:31:40.817+02:002014-05-19T23:31:40.817+02:00" Er hat, vermute ich, einfach unterschätzt, ...<em>" Er hat, vermute ich, einfach unterschätzt, wie stark eine Tätigkeit in einem wiss. Beirat schon als Parteinahme und Schlimmeres interpretiert wird."</em><br /><br />Das ist auch eine meiner Vermutungen. Aber wenn ich zu einer Einladung hingehe, und dann feststelle, dass die Party absolut nicht mein Geschmack ist, dann wahre ich so eine Art Anstandsfrist und verlasse den Ort nicht schon 10 min später wieder. Und falls doch, dann bemühe ich mich, dem Gastgeber gegenüber zwingende Gründe zu meiner Verteidigung vorzubringen.<br /><br />AndreasAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-70536688047940878312014-05-19T23:05:31.870+02:002014-05-19T23:05:31.870+02:00"ob es vom Anstand her zu beanstanden wäre, d..."ob es vom Anstand her zu beanstanden wäre, dass Bengtsson im verbreiteten Schreiber im Grunde alle seine Kollegen unter den Generalverdacht des McCarthyismus gestellt hat."<br /><br />Sicher hat er nicht alle gemeint, aber er hätte dann ja auch mal erwähnen können, wieviel Zuspruch er erhalten hat, um nicht alle in Sippenhaft zu nehmen. In diesem Punkt teile ich Ihre Unzufriedenheit mit der Informationslage. Sie stellen da genau die richtigen Fragen. Wobei wir im Schutz der mehr-oder-weniger-Anonymität gut reden haben.<br /><br />Ich habe mich auch sehr gewundert, wie schnell er zurückgezuckt ist, denn mit Email-Gegenwind und auch solch geschmacklosen Kommentaren wie von Dr. Georg Hoffmann war ja zu rechnen. Er hat, vermute ich, einfach unterschätzt, wie stark eine Tätigkeit in einem wiss. Beirat schon als Parteinahme und Schlimmeres interpretiert wird.Karl Kuhnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-18919264900063069162014-05-19T22:35:25.661+02:002014-05-19T22:35:25.661+02:00Karl Kuhn,
anstandshalber könnte man auch mal fra...Karl Kuhn,<br /><br />anstandshalber könnte man auch mal fragen, ob es vom Anstand her zu beanstanden wäre, dass Bengtsson im verbreiteten Schreiber im Grunde alle seine Kollegen unter den Generalverdacht des McCarthyismus gestellt hat. Aber wir sind alle zu anständig dafür.<br /><br />Lassen wir die Kommentare hier Revue passieren, dann erkennen wir, dass wir echt gut darin sind, den Maßstab "Anstand" mit Argusaugen scharf im Blick zu haben - jeweils bei der anderen Seite natürlich.<br /><br />AndreasAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-40210705841022879692014-05-19T22:19:51.616+02:002014-05-19T22:19:51.616+02:00Andreas,
wg. Gosselin: von dem erwarte ich leider...Andreas,<br /><br />wg. Gosselin: von dem erwarte ich leider gar keinen Anstand und lese seinen Blog deswegen auch nicht. Beim Thema Anstand ging es mir darum, dass Wissenschaftler von den eigenen Kollegen, und umso mehr von Koautoren, nicht nur legales, sondern auch anständiges Verhalten erwarten dürfen. Karl Kuhnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-91816051224731195002014-05-19T22:13:51.248+02:002014-05-19T22:13:51.248+02:00@ Stefan Otto
Das übliche, stereotype Feinbild, d...@ Stefan Otto<br /><br />Das übliche, stereotype Feinbild, das der Herr Vennecke da vertritt. Hätte ohne weiteres auch von Jakob Augstein stammen können ("die Macht des weißen Mannes").<br /><br />Erinnert mich entfernt irgendwie auch an die Kampagne gegen einen Herrn Sarrazin, laut Mely Kiyak eine "lispelnde, stotternde, zuckende Menschenkarikatur".<br /><br />Insofern war es vielleicht gut, dass Lennart Bengtsson den Augsteins und Konsorten zuvor gekommen ist.<br /><br />(nicht als Satire gemeint)<br /><br />HeinerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-61999663540572412442014-05-19T16:01:34.596+02:002014-05-19T16:01:34.596+02:00@ Stefan Otto
Wie viele Kommentare dieser Art hät...@ Stefan Otto<br /><br />Wie viele Kommentare dieser Art hätten Sie erwartet? Wieviele hat LB erwartet? Null?<br /><br />PS:<br />Finden Sie auch solch einen Kommentar VOR LB's Austritt?<br /><br />PPS:<br />In der NoTricksZone hat ein Kommentator LB als "crybaby" bezeichnet. Damit wären es schon 2 Kommentare. Sie finden den Kommentar im Artikel, wo Gosselin die Klimaforschergemeinde mit Boko Haram vergleicht (in der Überschrift).(!!) Bisher hat sich noch kein Kommentator gefunden, der das unanständig fand, so viel zum Thema "Anstand".<br /><br />AndreasAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8216971263350849959.post-19943752660662295572014-05-19T13:48:09.459+02:002014-05-19T13:48:09.459+02:00Mich wundert es nicht, dass Bengtsson sich bedroht...Mich wundert es nicht, dass Bengtsson sich bedroht fühlt, wenn ich solche Kommentare lesen .......<br /><br />"Wie es aussieht, ist Bengtsson ein armer alter, schon leicht vergreister Wissenschaftler, der inzwischen beginnt, Kontakt mit der Wirklichkeit zu verlieren:<br /><br />Zudem hat er sich die falschen Freunde ausgesucht. Er wird wohl von den Klimaleugnern für ihre miesen Zwecke instrumentalisiert und ist naiv genug, sich für dieses Spielchen herzugeben.<br /><br />Allein die Tatsache, dass er von Rupert Murdock und seinen Medien, die alles andere als die Wahrheit verbreiten, vereinnahmt wird, ist ausreichend Beleg dafür, dass Bengtsson falsch liegt."<br /><br />http://tinyurl.com/kamyrku<br /><br />MfG<br /><br />Stefan OttoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com