In the self-proclaimed leading media, global crises are always explained to the population with scientific findings.
Whether it's climate change or the coronavirus crisis - they always said: "The scientists agree."
But is that really the case?
Doesn't science thrive on questioning, on doubt, on the discourse of different views?
Richard Feynman, the American physicist and Nobel Prize winner, still emphasized the central role of doubt in science in 1965.
He stated that the belief in the ignorance of experts was a core characteristic of science,
which underlines the need for doubt and skepticism.
This principle is paramount for scientific progress, as it enables new questions to be asked
and the boundaries of knowledge to be extended.
Feynman emphasized that one must not only leave room for doubt, but even actively encourage it in order to achieve progress.
However, the reality is different.
Hans-Joachim Zillmer, author and researcher on experimental earth history, knows this.
He vehemently disagrees and says: "It is a common error to believe that new scientific research results automatically prevail."
According to Zillmer, the media play a key role here.
Politically controlled, they decide which findings and models are propagated and which are not.
Old theories are also suppressed if they contradict the current world view.
Both old theories and, to quote Zillmer, "radically new and perhaps valuable ideas receive no support to make them public".
The scientist Prof. Dr. Christof Kuhbandner is someone who was heavily targeted by the mainstream press during the
corona crisis because he also doubted so-called expert opinions.
In an interview with Gunnar Kaiser, he explains where he sees the core of science.
"As a scientist, I basically never talk about truths.
There is a nice quote by Richard Feynman, well-known physicist and Nobel Prize winner, who said:
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts."
So when I think scientifically, I have the task of questioning expert opinions and advancing the knowledge of mankind.
And some people keep confusing the roles here, also in scientific communication.
Actually, I should always say: Am I speaking as a scientist or am I speaking as an expert?"
"As a scientist, you actually have the task of questioning any "truth" sold by experts.
That is the real job of science."
However, any scientist who does this, will quickly suffer the consequences.
The communication scientist Prof. Michael Meyen is under constant fire from the leading media, which
has now led to his extensive professional exclusion.
In his new book "How I lost my university", Meyen not only describes the details of a campaign in which he lost almost
everything that defined him as an academic, but also analyzes a deeper, systemic background: the radical
restructuring of universities over the last 30 years.
It is about commercialization, adaptation, fear and the politicization of research.
Meyen writes: "We do want democracy, but we choose who is allowed to participate."
Physicist and climate activist Sabine Hossenfelder is now questioning the methodology used to link
certain extreme weather events to climate change.
She says: "Many climate scientists know how sketchy the study results are coming out of this world weather
attribution center, but they keep their mouths shut."
"There are many climate scientists who totally know that their so-called research is not reliable, but they
don't say a word because it'd be politically inconvenient."
Anke Uhlenwinkel, university professor for the didactics of geography and economics, recently published a book:
"Those who disturb must go - the removal of critical professors from universities".
In an interview with AUF 1, she describes how more and more professors are losing their jobs - not because of poor
academic work, but because they ask uncomfortable questions.
Former places of free debate are now institutions of fear, censorship and political conformity.
Anyone who doesn't fit into the prevailing narrative gets the boot.
In an interview with Elsa Mittmannsgruber, she talks about the abuse of power,
conformity and the betrayal of the idea of science.
She also believes that every citizen can only form their own opinion when given access to the full range of scientific facts.
"... and the more you know about all the things that you could actually know, and that is much
more than what is normally discussed in public....
Of course, the more you know, the more you can form your own somewhat well-founded opinion and also form a social opinion."
"Now, in this process, science actually communicates things openly within science, so we see that with the Robert Koch
Institute protocols, science was discussed there, but then, we can say, that something
completely different was communicated to the public.
...Yes, and in this corona crisis there were some scientists who, I think, actually had something useful to
say, but they were simply not heard, they were just, so to speak, pushed to the sidelines.
We'll get to that, too, because some of the people involved in our study certainly fall into that category, and if we had heard
them, we would have had at least two opinions, and as citizens we could have decided for ourselves
which of them we ultimately found more convincing.
If that doesn't happen, if we just, so to say "follow the science" - and by-the-way, that's actually an absolutely unscientific
expression, because "science" doesn't dictate anything.
"Science" doesn't talk about good or bad, but in science we talk about certain facts, hypotheses,
experiments, whatever it is that we are doing there.
You can also question - do surveys, you can say: Okay, now this and this has come out of it, but
this isn't necessarily recorded as "good" and "bad".
Instead, it just reports that a certain percentage of respondents said this and that.
And then I can form my own opinion as a citizen, when I am broadly informed, whether I find this alarming
or whether I say, well, all my friends say the same thing, what are you all getting upset about?
I can ultimately decide that for myself then.
But if I don't have this range of actual results and I'm told, hey there is this one result and we're going to follow it, then I
can no longer do that, and then a society becomes no longer free, because the freedom of
choice for the individual is no longer there."
In the interview, Prof. Anke Uhlenwinkel also talks about so-called third-party funding, which is used to finance research.
"Yes, third-party funding is a very important point.
As a rule, applications for this state what "good-result" is desired and there are also some so-called
"buzzwords", which you absolutely have to include in these third-party funding applications to have any chance at all.
And meanwhile, you even have to bid for some third-party funds and they are practically already allocated."
Prof. Dr. Werner Kirstein also addressed this problem of financing at the 14th AZK and
coined the term "politogenic climate change."
"I will explain later that a great deal of funding is provided, of course by the EU and by the individual states.
So many scientists are being recruited to develop climate programs, to do research
on them in order to get funding for them.
I come from a university, we have seen that the basic funding at universities is not sufficient to run really normal operations.
So what does the scientist do?
He takes a look at the EU funding catalog and the German funding catalog, and this also exists in other countries.
And there you find some topic that fits in with climate change and then I make an application, formulate an application
and submit the application to the relevant authority.
And lo and behold, as soon as the word global warming or increase in temperature is mentioned in any context, money flows in.
The most curious thing I've ever experienced was when a group of biologists, not climatologists at all - they didn't even know
what climate change actually was, global warming, okay, we can handle with that - and then the topic for the biologists
was: "The behavior of lugworms with increasing temperature"!
That's how far it has come, the topic no longer plays any role at all, the main thing is climate change and then the money flows.
Then you can see the generous sponsors, so it's not just the EU that supports such things, the federal ministries
also support such applications and researchers have some work.
I have been asking many of my colleagues: "What are you doing, don't you check the truth content, what's going on?"
"Well, we need money, the money has to flow. How can we exist if we have no money?"
And then of course you can hire doctoral students again, so you can buy computers, you can invest
in equipment, staff etc. and then something flows.
But you need funding for this and then it doesn't really matter what topic you choose,
as long as it has to do with global warming.
It's sad, but that's how it works."
So scientists shouldn't agree at all, because science thrives on questioning, doubt and open debate.
It is obvious that research is dependent on and controlled by politics through the allocation of funding.
The public only learns about scientific findings that are politically desired through the leading media.
The scientists are caught in a trap, because their scientific reputation and often their
livelihoods are threatened if they leave this system.
Therefore, the appeal goes out to every sincere researcher - those scientists who want to conduct honest research - that they
do not allow themselves to be corrupted, but raise their voices, provide counter-evidence and
are courageous in addressing the deficiencies.