From Bishop Hill, news via Pierre Gosselin that the decision by SEII to disinvite speakers to a conference (including Dr. Fred Singer) has backfired, badly.
Gosselin is reporting that a prominent engineer has resigned from one of France’s [sic*] learned societies over its bad behaviour on climate change – SEII, which appears to be an interdisciplinary body, disinvited two prominent sceptics from its conference after pressure from the IPCC.
Thanks to Messenger for this rough translation of the resignation letter:
[excerpts]
It has come to my knowledge that the official document put out by the Secretary General n which he informed the Administrators that with regard to the Climategate affair.
…
For myself, to put it plainly, this action was nothing other than the trafficking of influence, based on defamatory declarations that you had not taken the trouble to verify yourself and you would have been better to admit that you had come under external pressure from SEII [for?] appearing to censure those who defended a point of view which was opposite to that of M. VAN YPERSELE and those authorities that he represents. These facts are incontestable, whatever casuistical arguments you are tempted to develop to suggest that I had committed a serious fault in procedure.
…
I can no longer accept that neither you nor the Executive Bureau share [the same] values which are dear to me and on which I have never compromised nor will ever compromise in the future. In consequence of which, I present you with my resignation from all the duties which I have performed on behalf of SEII. Also I no longer wish to appear on the list of members, nor to receive any more of your emails.
*Update: J-Cl Michel points out in comments it is actually one of Belgium’s learned societies
Wow!!! A climate scientist with ethics AND a pair.
Bravo!
I speak French. This is a much more strongly worded letter than we have seen in the Anglosphere. It borders on vitriolic. Good for him.
Unfortunately this resignation is representative of a rare indivual who works at the highest levels of science and who also has normal ethical standard.
We have seen a trickle of these resignations for over 15 years now and have yet to see any significant impacts. We need to see a lot more if the cancer eating away at science is to be cured.
Seems that those pesky “skeptics” are on a bit of a roll lately.
Since I (just a simple engineer that manages to reconcile my models with my complex system (most of the time)) do not belong to any of these scientific societies I am prohibited from resigning in protest. But if I could I sure as H—L WOULD.
Cheers, Kevin.
It’s appearing that some organizations can no longer put out press releases saying that their ENTIRE membership agrees with their CAGW stance.
Hopefully, we’ll see more of these scientists put out PUBLIC statements, not only commenting on the refusal to debate the science, but questioning the scientific process itself (releasing the data to see if results can be repeated, etc).
Of course, these “renegade” scientists will be denigrated, their pasts reviewed, their papers refused – the usual tactics from the “consensus”.
Heh, Paul, he knew he needed to bring the big one to flatten the fort.
============
Every day another bails. The smarter each is, the faster the departure.
…
They were fooled by imbeciles with a political or monetary agenda.
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fnotrickszone.com%2F2011%2F09%2F24%2Fanother-professor-resigns-this-one-from-the-belgian-european-society-of-engineers-and-industrialists-seii%2F
he’s really angry and not mincing words
More evidence that no one should believe in ‘manmade global warming’.
Other scientists have resigned from organizations, Richard Feynman being a very famous example:
I was at the private alternative meeting where Singer and Johnson did speak, after the decision of SEII and the Free University of Brussels (ULB) to forbid the meeting at the ULB in their name. Interesting debate and a shame that this kind of debate is impossible in Belgium, while Singer a day before was invited at the KNMI (the Dutch meteorological institute), without problems…
gnomish @ September 25, 2011 at 12:14 am
This is the best bit:-
Google translate:-
http://notrickszone.com/2011/09/24/another-professor-resigns-this-one-from-the-belgian-european-society-of-engineers-and-industrialists-seii/
More here
http://notrickszone.com/2011/08/30/ipcc-vice-chai-van-ypersele-suppresses-open-scientific-inquiry-disallows-critical-debate/
Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
September 25, 2011 at 12:50 am
great post to remind people of what ‘attitude’ in science is all about. I’d just graduated in 81, and I recall watching his interviews on the BBC – Feynman was a truly genuine inspirational type of scientist, with an enthusiasm that makes most ordinary science folks blush.
I’d meant to add that the scientific ‘attitude’ should always be to welcome views, critical or not, blase or serious ideas, even the seemingly plain ‘stupid’ ones (which often later turn out to be reasonable!). In my humble opinion, a true scientist is one who is always observing (and that includes looking and listening to others!).
Who resign ?
Henri Masson, engineer yes, but too Dr and honorary (retired) Professor of geology at University of Lausanne (UNIL), former director of ELSTE (University of Geneva and University of Lausanne, both in Switzerland) http://www.unil.ch/geoleman
Henri Masson always sign : Prof. Dr. eng.
Gosselin is reporting that a prominent engineer has resigned from one of France’s learned societies over its bad behaviour on climate change…
Please correct to : … from one of Belgian learned societies
[Thank you – footnote correction added as it is a direct quote ~jove, mod]
Well done that man, he speaks for science.
The translation is a bit ‘automatic’.
I only have schoolboy French, but I have provided a more fluent English translation. It is somewhat freer with the idioms, and in some cases I have had to make guesses about the underlying meaning since my vocab is so poor – it should not therefore be considered highly accurate. But it may prompt some better translator to improve it, and give it a wider circulation in the Anglophone world. At present no English-speaking journalist can really use the document…
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Mr. President,
I have just read the official document drawn up by the General Secretary of SEII concerning the Climategate affair, which informs the Governors that the Board, by very large majority, retains its confidence in you, in spite of the clear evidence I have provided earlier of the lies that you have told them.
After having denied that you were involved, you appear to have continued to intervene (as the Secretary General makes clear in his letter to the Governors), orchestrating third-party protests through Professor Van Ypersele. It is clear to me that this was nothing more than a blatant attempt to apply pressure to our working group, based on defamatory statements which you have not taken the trouble to confirm. You have surrendered to forces outside SEII whose aim is to prevent any presentation of any views which oppose those of Professor Van Ypersele and their own position
These facts are undeniable, whatever justification you may try to produce to defend the serious transgression that you have committed.
Though there is no precise mandate for the activities of formation of the SEII, and in particular those covering the general discussion of the climatic controversy, I really cannot see why the normal procedures for this regular working group cannot be followed.
When an agenda or speaker for a SEII working group is being proposed, it is usual for this to be undertaken without an intervention from the Board. If this approach had been followed, there would have been no need for this unpleasant incident.
But, obviously, the Board are not interested in coherent and objective judgement.
Free discussion of subjects such as these are central to the remit of SEII. Trying to suppress this while citing specious procedural excuses does not become you. It would have been better for you to claim that you were persuaded to do this by Professor Van Ypersele, on the basis of the reputation he still enjoys in Belgium, in spite of his connections to the most radical branch of Greenpeace. I have given you a week to reconsider your position, and you have failed to do so.
I can only conclude that both yourself and the Board do not share a certain number of values which I hold to be central, and which I have never compromised nor ever will.
Therefore I formally resign all the positions which I hold within SEII. I do not wish to be included on your list of members, nor receive any mail from you in future.
In this matter that divides us I can now maintain my freedom to discuss my beliefs and put my case to whoever I may wish.
Sincerely yours,
Prof Dr. Ir. Henri A. Masson
CC: SEII Board
Disinvitation is dishonorable, and can be a really dirty trick, depending on the timing. Last-minute disinvitation is a form of censorship. If the speaker knew in advance that he would not be welcome at a particular venue, he could make plans to speak before a more open-minded group. This happened to a friend of mine, Glenn Burress, who has since died.
Although he had a Ph.D. in economics, Glenn considered himself to be a systems scientist. In contrast with the leading team-players in the macroeconomics field, Glenn successfully predicted all of the major economic ups and downs of the 1970s–including the Oil Shock of 1979.
Many years later, I proposed to the program committee of the annual Regional Gathering for Sacramento-area Mensa that we invite Glenn to give a presentation at the RG. They thought that it was a good idea, and we invited Glenn. When the Locsec at the time caught wind of the decision, she weighed in with ad hom attacks against Glenn–behind his back, of course. And Glenn was subsequently disinvited.
Glen was understandably POd, and he threatened to sue. The Locsec caved, and Glenn gave his presentation, as originally planned. Sometimes disinviters do get their comeuppances.
The IPCC’s objective is to show indications that CO2 is dangerous, and then to make influencal reports for the executive bodies. They want to put a stop to the usage of fossile fuels.
So they want a concensus view from an international body (themselves) so that the governments will start doing what is neccessary (in the IPCC’s view). Without troublesome inputs from sceptics.
The science is settled, start executing! That is the message. The more sceptics that resign, the better, they think. Keep the scepitcs out in the dark, forever forgotten. That is the goal.
Hurry,hurry, otherwise we are all doomed! They believe in the tipping point, you see. The idea that we have a stable regulator in there with negative feedbacks is preposterous to them. Therefore the fuzz around Spencer-Baswell’s paper. It should never have seen the light of day.
Call me Mr Cynical but could this have anything to do with the 3 recent papers regarding cloud feedback being neg rather than pos? There’s an old story about rats leaving the ship at it’s last port of call before it goes down. The good ship AGW has been holed below the waterline for years, perhaps some on board are now seriously worried about the efficacy of all that emergency caulking they stuffed in trying to keep it afloat?
ANSWER to MAROT: Please note Henri Masson form UNIL is my homonym.
“Dr. Ir.” is the Belgian oficial title for PhD in Engineering, that I got from the University of Brussels, Faculty of Applied Science & Engineering.
“Ir” is to be distinguished in Belgium from “Eng”. The first one (which is my title) refers to a M.Sc. cum laude (2 years bachelor + 3 years masters). Eng corresponds to four study years.
I have been affiiliated with the University of Brussels, University of Durban (SA), University Collerge London (UK), Cambridge University (UK), Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (CH). I presently work on a part time basis at the University of Antwerp (Be) and at the Maastrichtt School of Management (Nl) beside my consulting work for international donors (USAId, EUAid, UNDP, etc.) on sustainable and local development in emerging economies.
My research focus is since several years on the analysis of complex “dynamical” (chaotic) systems (understand systems so coimplex and non linear that they become almost unpredictable on the medium and long term). Climate change and all the players moves around are my real favourite investigation playground, as it is a marvellous case for using my toolbox.
This information is only provided to avoid pending questionmarks on my identity and legitimacy. it is not who you are that is important but how you behave (especially when you have to deal with incomplete or biased information). I do not intend to develop a polemic on this specific issue with you, Margot
A prominent engineer? Wow. The renowned climate scientist Fred Singer? What a
loss for any learned society and for us all.
Pihlström <— a worm criticizing a lion.
I call for the resignation of IPCC vice president Jean-Pascal van Ypersele.
John
“Smokey says:
September 25, 2011 at 5:34 am
Pihlström <— a worm criticizing a lion."
Unfair to the worms.
Mikael Pihlström: “A prominent engineer? Wow. The renowned climate scientist Fred Singer? What a loss for any learned society and for us all.”
—
The loss concerns the freedom of scientific discussion and the credibility of science as a whole, not this or that individual.
Whatever your stand on the global warming issue may be, you should be glad that at least some individuals stand up for that freedom.
RichieP says:
September 25, 2011 at 7:40 am
“Smokey says:
September 25, 2011 at 5:34 am
Pihlström <— a worm criticizing a lion."
Unfair to the worms.
—————————–
These contrarians, Nobel prize winners in Physics etc., are undoubtedly fine intellectuals in
their own respective fields, but that does not allow them to pronounce sweeping verdicts
without bothering to read up on climate science. It is your lot that expose them to ridicule by hyping up every resignation. Please make a quick calculation: How many members of learned societies might there be globally; how many active scientist members; how many climate scientists?These resignations are insignificant. It’s like saying that the New York subway will
have to close down because a thousand passengers wowed to never use it again last year.
BTW Have we meet before? Down here at the worm level?
Mike says:
September 25, 2011 at 8:15 am
The loss concerns the freedom of scientific discussion and the credibility of science as a whole, not this or that individual.
Whatever your stand on the global warming issue may be, you should be glad that at least some individuals stand up for that freedom.
—
In principle I agree, but in this case these professional disinformation officers cynically
misuse open venues, never correct false claims although these have been pointed out to them
over and over again. It is understandable that doors eventually close for them, simply because
of quality control concerns.
If anyone watched some of the Feynman video, in one lecture he says that you confirm a theory by experimentation or experience. Real world verification. If the theory disagrees with the real world, the theory is wrong, no matter how beautiful the theory or who proposed the theory.
When politicians get involved, that approach goes right out the window.
In case the moderators didn’t catch it, Dr. Masson chimed in above. Thanks for visiting this blog, sir.
Mikael Pihlström says: September 25, 2011 at 8:25 am
Another variation of the “only climate scientists can pronounce on climate science” meme. Pathetic. You have no idea of what these dissidents are familiar with yet you declare them irrelevant. Again, pathetic.
The letter of resignation is in florid, but not floridly polite, French.
Let me give the first two paragraphs a try here. I think DodgyGeezer got the first paragraph right, but the charges Dr. Masson is making in the second paragraph are somewhat different.
Je viens de prendre connaissance du document officiel établi par le Secrétaire Général de la SEII relatif à l’affaire « Climategate », par lequel il informe les Administrateurs que le Bureau Exécutif, à une très large majorité, vous a réitéré sa confiance, malgré les évidences factuelles, que j’ai fournies antérieurement, qui établissent la réalité des mensonges que vous leur avez faits.
I have just become aware of the official statement from the Secretary General of SEII, in which he informs the Administrators that the Executive Board has, by an overwhelming majority, reaffirmed its confidence in you, despite the factual evidence, which I have already provided, documenting the lies that you have told them.
Il appert que, après l’avoir nié par écrit, vous avez bien dû reconnaître que vous avez agi suite à une intervention d’une « tierce personne », comme le qualifie pudiquement le Secrétaire Général dans sa lettre aux Administrateurs, cette intervention d’une tierce personne étant en fait une lettre de protestation du Professeur VAN YPERSELE. Pour moi, en clair, il ne s’agit de rien d’autres que d’avoir participé à un trafic d’influence, basé sur des déclarations diffamantes que vous n’avez même pas pris la peine de vérifier, et vous avez bien cédé à des pressions externes à la SEII visant à censurer des intervenants défendant un point de vue opposé à celui de M. VAN YPERSELE et des instances qu’il représente.
It appears that, after having denied it in writing, you have had to admit that you acted in response to the intervention of a “third party,” as the Secretary General shamefacedly calls him in his letter to the Administrators—this third-party intervention in fact being a letter of complaint from Professor Van Ypersele. It is clear to me that all you were doing was colluding in an exercise of improper influence, based on defamatory declarations that you did not even take the take the trouble to verify, and you really did give in to external pressure applied to SEII, with the aim of censoring invited speakers defending a point of view opposed to that of Mr. Van Ypersele and the constituencies that he represents.
Mikael Pihlström says: “… these professional disinformation officers cynically
misuse open venues, never correct false claims although these have been pointed out to them over and over again. It is understandable that doors eventually close for them …”
—
If there is one thing that the U of Anglia emails showed beyond a doubt, it was that there is a clear strategy to exclude and silence opponents of the current orthodoxy using tactics other than winning arguments.
Regarding the never corrected false claims, surely you are referring to the hockey stick?
Sorry, in the first paragraph I left out a phrase.
it should read:
I have just become aware of the official statement from the Secretary General of SEII concerning the “Climategate” affair, in which he informs the Administrators that the Executive Board has, by an overwhelming majority, reaffirmed its confidence in you, despite the factual evidence, which I have already provided, documenting the lies that you have told them.
“Climategate” in this context refers to the disinvitation of the speakers from the SEII climate forum—not to what we usually call Climategate.
oh! Dr. Masson! Bravo!
you did yourself great honor.
if other scientists understood that their reputations suffer merely by failing to take a stand against corruption, perhaps they’d be motivated to protect what they seem to value lightly.
when i hear ‘scientists say’, i now cringe automatically.
when i hear the name Dr. Masson – i shall relax a little – and wonder why there are so few other men of virtue.
It is understandable that doors eventually close for them, simply because of quality control concerns.
So which doors have eventually closed to Michael Mann, simply because of quality control concerns?
Mikael Pihlström says:
“BTW Have we meet before? Down here at the worm level?”
No.
“Nobel prize winners in Physics etc., are undoubtedly fine intellectuals in
their own respective fields, but that does not allow them to pronounce sweeping verdicts
without bothering to read up on climate science.”
Really. You mean, like this guy?
Education:
B.A., Physics and Mathematics, 1963, University of Iowa
M.S., Astronomy, 1965, University of Iowa
Ph.D., Physics, 1967, University of Iowa
[That’s the education background of NASA’s James Hansen, the foremost advocate of anthropogenic global warming.]
Robert E. Phelan says:
September 25, 2011 at 9:24 am
Mikael Pihlström says: September 25, 2011 at 8:25 am
Another variation of the “Robert E. Phelan says:
September 25, 2011 at 9:24 am
Mikael Pihlström says: September 25, 2011 at 8:25 am
Another variation of the “only climate scientists can pronounce on climate science” meme. Pathetic. You have no idea of what these dissidents are familiar with yet you declare them irrelevant. Again, pathetic.
.
—–
Where did I say “only climate scientists can pronounce on climate science” ? Nowhere.
You made it up. I did say that if you want to refute AGW theory you have to read up
on what it actually says and what evidence is presented, whether you are a nobelist,
a truck driver or a pathetic blogger. The statements by Giaever (recent WUWT post)
and Dyson I have seen are clever, but sweeping objections on grounds, which have
already been evaluated and found invalid by more initiated researchers.
———————
henri Masson,
I thank you for coming here to comment.
You have provided me with another brick to add to the weight of my judgment of the corruption of key IPCC personnel through their substantial lack of basic scientific virtues*. Now I see we have a key IPCC leader, vice president Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, who behaves in a unacceptable scientific manner.
* Scientific Virtues: integrity, independence, openness and transparency
John
Mikael Pihlström says:
September 25, 2011 at 8:32 am
Mikael, in this case, someone who knows a lot of chaotic systems, which climate is, resigns from a society, because of pressure by Van Ypersele. The latter has no peer reviewed articles about climate whatsoever, only made a report for Greenpeace and he is Vice-President of the IPCC, a pure administrative function.
In contrast, Singer was invited by the Dutch KNMI the day before for a debate with two scientists of the KNMI itself (climate modellers) and further did speak at meetings for engineering societies in other countries during his European tour. If you dislike what Singer says, the best option is to debate his opinion, not to try to suppress his opinion. The latter is the only way out for people like Van Ypersele, who’s knowledge of climate doesn’t reach the ankels of what Singer knows of the subject…
Smokey says:
September 25, 2011 at 10:05 am
Mikael Pihlström says:
“BTW Have we meet before? Down here at the worm level?”
No.
—————————
Well, usually it takes one to know one …
I thought WUWT had a policy on demeaning invective?
Thanks, Dr. Masson, for checking in above, at 9/25, 4:55AM. Congratulations on your principled stand! My reading of Marot (9/25 3:04AM) is that he/she is on your side and was trying to be helpful.
Although the main post does not mention it, the linked notrickszone.com page indicates that person who has resigned is the above Dr. Ir. Henri A. Masson, coordinator of the SEII conference in question (SEII = European Society of Engineers and Industrialists). Besides Fred Singer, Dr. Claes Johnson was also disinvited.
Dr. Masson explains that Dr. Ir. is the Belgian equivalent of Dr. Eng. I’m guessing that Ir. stands for Ingenieur?
On continental Europe the title of Engineer is revered well above that of accountants, doctors and lawyers. Not like in the UK where an engineer repairs your dishwasher.
So any disparaging because Dr Masson is only an Engineer is unfounded and counter productive.
Mikael Pihlström,
I did say that if you want to refute AGW theory you have to read up on what it actually says and what evidence is presented, whether you are a nobelist, a truck driver or a pathetic blogger.
Nothing in your comments suggests that you have studied the theory or the evidence.
Does that make you a pathetic commenter?
Your use of the term “inititated” (as in “more initiated researchers”) suggests that membership in an exclusive fraternity carries far more weight, from your point of view, than the actual quality of research or theorizing.
Hu McCulloch says:
September 25, 2011 at 10:24 am
I’m guessing that Ir. stands for Ingenieur?
Indeed it is, and is equivalent for a M.Sc. in the Anglo-Saxon world. Dr. Ir. is the equivalent of a Ph.D., but both are a lot more difficult to obtain and (indeed are revered) far above those same titles for accountants and lawyers…
Eng. or Ing. in Belgium is a 4-year study and is more or less equivalent to a (but better than most) B.Sc.
You mention that if someone wishes to weigh-in on climate science they need to read some of the science itself, and I doubt anyone here would disagree; but, the present state of climate science appears, to us on the outside, like a club, and one may only join if one is august enough, and if one “thinks right.”
Dr. Singer makes an interesting example. He is a physicist, or maybe a “space scientist”, I don’t know which, but in 1980 (Maybe it was January 1981) I attended a talk by him at the University of Utah where he made projections of petroleum demand for what he referred to as the foreseeable future. He predicted flat or declining demand based mainly on the impact that imported cars would have eventually on U.S. consumption. I recall his talk was roundly criticized, even panned in some circles, because he lacked the right “expertise”. He was, after all, not an economist, but his analysis turned out to be quite correct all the same. Now when he enters the climate science debate he is an interloper.
One cannot address the full issue of climate science through an obsession with computer models and mean temperature. Rather there are issues that engineers, geologists, economists, meteorologists, astronomers, and even anthropologists might explain that have pertinence to this debate, irrespective of how steeped they are in “climate science.”
Mikael Pihlström says:
September 25, 2011 at 10:13 am
“Where did I say “only climate scientists can pronounce on climate science” ? Nowhere.
You made it up. I did say that if you want to refute AGW theory you have to read up
on what it actually says and what evidence is presented, whether you are a nobelist,
a truck driver or a pathetic blogger. The statements by Giaever (recent WUWT post)
and Dyson I have seen are clever, but sweeping objections on grounds, which have
already been evaluated and found invalid by more initiated researchers.”
I see that you do not read WUWT. AGW theory, so-called, has not only been refuted here but utterly savaged.
For your entertainment, I will do it again. AGW theory, so-called, consists of two things: 1) preposterous computer models that produce simulations that fail to track any known climate numbers and 2) the fantastical work of paleo-climatologists who cannot account for the behavior of their proxies over the last forty years so that they have to “hide the decline” and who lack all scientific instincts as shown in the fact that they have not accounted for the hidden decline of those proxies to this day.
[SNIP: Theo, don’t spoil a good reply with this kind of stuff. -REP, mod]
To: IPCC Vice President Jean-Pascal van Ypersele
I hope you will soon apologize for the consequences of your actions which led to SEII disinviting several speakers at a SEII planned conference. Consider the followinng quote as you reflect on the wisdom of apologizing.
John
”Mikael Pihlström says: blah”
I think your replies and posts indicate that you do not fully understand what the article is about. It is nothing directly to do with AGW/Climate change. It is about third party intrusions into a bone fide conference into selectivly ‘disinviting’ speakers.
So Mikael would you argue that such intervervention is acceptable ? If so, then put your argument why.
Theo Goodwin says:
September 25, 2011 at 1:03 pm
[SNIP: Theo, don’t spoil a good reply with this kind of stuff. -REP, mod]
Well done. You get an assist on that one.
Thank you Dodgy Geezer for a very clear translation. Dr. Masson is obviously extremely disappointed by the weakness of his society in preventing alternate views, the basis of scientific endeavour.
Dr Masson
Thank you.
M Pihlstroem
You are right about blog policy regarding personal attacks. Both you and others came close to the line here. Now back to the science. You refer to “the initiated”. The true initiation of Science is Scientific Method. “Nullius In Verba” to quote the forgotten motto of the Royal Society – “On the words of nobody”. In other words, you have to check the science YOURSELF from first principles, trusting no peer reviews, no PhD’s, no professorships, no IPCC, I repeat, none of these. “Initiation” is a word of Latin origins that has to do with going back to beginnings, in other words, Nullius In Verba. You, sir, have to do your own scientific checks. And you have to check the best evidence on all sides. And you have to watch your state of mind, to see you are not being swayed by emotion – but also to pay attention to emotion, because this too is evidence. Yes, this is a lot of work. Thankfully it was made possible for me, because John Cook pointed me to all the “skeptics arguments” where I would need to consider evidence from both sides; and because I was on longterm sick note. So I wrote it all up. Click my name. And no, I have no science degree of any kind. But I’m sure many others here who DO have science degrees would concur with what I’ve said here.