In climate science, the more things change, the more they stay the same

change1Scientists are still behaving badly

It has been an extraordinary week. To review, we have news of the resignation of Lennart Bengtsson from The GWPF due to McCarthyism style pressure from climate science community, and according to him, particularly from academics in the USA. Then we have his ERL paper rejection by what appears to be baseless grounds from a reviewer who opined it would be “…less then helpful, actually it is harmful…”. 

That, combined with the dead serious but simultaneously laughable legal threat letter from the University of Queensland to Brandon Shollenberger telling him he may get sued, or worse, become a target of a criminal investigation, because he wants to write a scientific rebuttal to John Cook’s “97% consensus” paper, using Cook’s own ratings data, which Cook refuses share but left out in the open on a collaboration website. All of that speaks to scientists behaving badly.

Legal_attack_panel

AGU 2013 Climate Science Under Legal Attack – Scientists Tell their stories. L-R Naomi Oreskes, Jeff Ruch (PEER), Kevin Trenberth, Michael Mann, Andrew Dessler, Ben Santer

In looking at the Bengtsson affair, I see the same M.O. we’ve seen before from people we are familiar with, and it is my opinion that we’ll eventually find that Peter Gleick, Michael Mann, Ben Santer, and Kevin Trenberth along with some other familiar names were involved in that “pressure” that Bengtsson speaks of. I hope he’ll eventually publish those emails, but if not, they’ll eventually come out.

When I attended AGU 2013, I was struck by how some scientists claim they have been “bullied” while also playing victims, with advertising even! (see photo)

IMG_20131209_131354[1]

Digital signage seen at AGU2013

But, at the same time these same scientists do lots of visible and invisible bullying themselves. Their AGU2013 session on “facing legal attacks” seemed to be nothing more than projection. The bottom line is these bozos have gotten themselves into the FOIA legal quagmire because they won’t share the data and process to allow their science to be replicated and self-policed by the larger body of scientists as it is supposed to be. Instead, they take the role of demi-clods, making pronouncements and saying “trust us”, while simultaneously hoping the FOIA requests and discovery process can be stonewalled away. The Mann-vs- Steyn affair for example, is the classic case. Mann advances his lawsuit, but won’t play by the rules of discovery, probably because he thinks he doesn’t have to comply. Still, Steyn’s lawsuit remains our best chance at finally getting to the bottom of Mann’s hockey-stick fiasco or as he calls it, “The Descent of Mann“.

The events we witnessed this week are indications that academic bureaucracy and the small cadre of “team climate science” hasn’t learned one damn thing since Climategate. For them, it’s business as usual with impunity.

Dr. Matt Ridley wrote an essay at his blog, The Rational Optimist titled The coerced consensus” which is well worth reading. But the thing that struck me the most was his list of references from the Climategate affair, which reads like the script from the movie “The Gang Who Couldn’t Shoot Straight”. It seems clear to me that at least in the field of paleoclimatology, these scientists really don’t have a clue about ethical and professional behavior. Look at this list compiled by Ridley, and you’ll see what I mean.


==========================================================
Examples of the threatening and blackballing of scientists, reporters and editors in the Climategate emails (note: broken links updated – Anthony)

  • Phil Jones writes to University of Hull to try to stop sceptic Sonia Boehmer Christiansen using her Hull affiliation. Graham F Haughton of Hull University says its easier to push greenery there now SB-C has retired.( 1256765544)
  • Michael Mann discusses how to destroy a journal that has published sceptic papers.( 1047388489)
  • Letter to The Times from climate scientists was drafted with the help of Greenpeace.( 0872202064)
  • Mann thinks he will contact BBC’s Richard Black to find out why another BBC journalist was allowed to publish a vaguely sceptical article.( 1255352257)
  • Tom Wigley says that von Storch is partly to blame for sceptic papers getting published at Climate Research. Says he encourages the publication of crap science. Says they should tell publisher that the journal is being used for misinformation. Says that whether this is true or not doesn’t matter. Says they need to get editorial board to resign. Says they need to get rid of von Storch too. ( 1051190249)
  • Ben Santer says (presumably jokingly!) he’s “tempted, very tempted, to beat the crap” out of sceptic Pat Michaels. ( 1255100876)
  • Tom Wigley discusses how to deal with the advent of FoI law in UK. Jones says use IPR argument to hold onto code. Says data is covered by agreements with outsiders and that CRU will be “hiding behind them”.( 1106338806)
  • Santer complaining about FoI requests from McIntyre. Says he expects support of Lawrence Livermore Lab management. Jones says that once support staff at CRU realised the kind of people the scientists were dealing with they became very supportive. Says the VC [vice chancellor] knows what is going on (in one case).( 1228330629)
  • Rob Wilson concerned about upsetting Mann in a manuscript. Says he needs to word things diplomatically.( 1140554230)
  • Briffa says he is sick to death of Mann claiming his reconstruction is tropical because it has a few poorly temp sensitive tropical proxies. Says he should regress these against something else like the “increasing trend of self-opinionated verbiage” he produces. Ed Cook agrees with problems.( 1024334440)
  • Santer says he will no longer publish in Royal Met Soc journals if they enforce intermediate data being made available. Jones has complained to head of Royal Met Soc about new editor of Weather [why?data?] and has threatened to resign from RMS.( 1237496573)
  • Reaction to McIntyre’s 2005 paper in GRL. Mann has challenged GRL editor-in-chief over the publication. Mann is concerned about the connections of the paper’s editor James Saiers with U Virginia [does he mean Pat Michaels?]. Tom Wigley says that if Saiers is a sceptic they should go through official GRL channels to get him ousted.( 1106322460) [Note to readers - Saiers was subsequently ousted]
  • Later on Mann refers to the leak at GRL being plugged.( 1132094873)
  • Jones says that UK climate organisations are coordinating themselves to resist FoI. They got advice from the Information Commissioner [!]( 1219239172)
  • Mann tells Revkin that McIntyre is not to be trusted.( 1254259645)
  • Jones says in a HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL email that he and Kevin will keep some papers out of the next IPCC report.( 1089318616)
  • Tom Wigley tells Mann that a figure Schmidt put together to refute Monckton is deceptive and that the match it shows of instrumental to model predictions is a fluke. Says there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model output by authors and IPCC.( 1255553034)
  • Grant Foster putting together a critical comment on a sceptic paper. Asks for help for names of possible reviewers. Jones replies with a list of people, telling Foster they know what to say about the paper and the comment without any prompting.( 1249503274)
  • Briffa discusses an sceptic article review with Ed Cook. Says that confidentially he needs to put together a case to reject it ( 1054756929)
  • Ben Santer, referring to McIntyre says he hopes Mr “I’m not entirely there in the head” will not be at the AGU.( 1233249393)

And here is what a climate scientist, Michael Schlesinger, wrote to Andy Revkin of the New York Times shortly afterwards:

Andy:

Copenhagen prostitutes?

Climate prostitutes?

Shame on you for this gutter reportage. This is the second time this week I have written you thereon, the first about giving space in your blog to the Pielkes.

The vibe that I am getting from here, there and everywhere is that your reportage is very worrisome to most climate scientists. Of course, your blog is your blog. But, I sense that you are about to experience the ‘Big Cutoff’ from those of us who believe we can no longer trust you, me included.

Copenhagen prostitutes?
Unbelievable and unacceptable.

What are you doing and why?

Michael

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/191241/climate-scientist-andy-revkin-we-can-no-longer-trust-you-steven-f-hayward

==========================================================

Got that? Toe the line as a reporter or we’ll cut you off.

And from this thread on WUWT: Professor Murry Salby who is critical of AGW theory, is being disenfranchised, exiled, from academia in Australia
…we have this comment from Dr. Jan Perlwitz, of NASA GISS/Columbia University in New York, which earned him a permanent ban from WUWT, due to his threat of violence:

perlwitzcomment_dead

What a bunch of climate mafia thugs. This is not going to end well.

UPDATE: Bishop Hill has a story also well worth reading:

The bigotry of the consensus

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate ugliness, Climategate, Opinion. Bookmark the permalink.

80 Responses to In climate science, the more things change, the more they stay the same

  1. Shawn in High River says:

    Wow
    Its really unbelievable when its all laid out like this

  2. Pathway says:

    This is the way of fascism. The next step will be reeducation camps followed by concentration camps for those who choose not to submit.

  3. Robin says:

    The idea of actively using deceit to try to socially engineer the unity of Mankind has always seemed farcical to me. In CAGW, as in Radical ed reforms in K-12 and higher ed, we see that people pursue what is in their self-interest. Lying to the public and coercive boycotts and mind arson are what brings in the grant money and tenure and promotions and so that is what is happening. It was no accident that a key aspect of the Convergence workshop the NRC put on last September involved Arizona State’s Michael Crow explaining how to use tenure and promotion policies to force profs to move away from the traditional disciplinary focus. Same techniques as what was earlier used with CAGW and to promote constructivist math and science.

  4. johnnyrvf says:

    Demi-Clods! Very funny! Sadly the facism of the Klimate Klub is not. I would find their insufferable lack of a sense of humour and pseudo prudish attitude amusing if it were not so repugnant and dangerous for normal, right thinking people.

  5. Adam Gallon says:

    The linked e-mails go to defunct website.

    REPLY: I’ve asked Ridley to update his list – Anthony

  6. Robin says:

    One more point on the law. Instead of the traditional focus of the law as a set of rules, law schools now are being pressured by their accreditors to focus on the law as a normative tool for driving social change. I heard several references to telling law students that they had an obligation to use the law to promote the common good at a cle conference I went to. I asked if this was a new obligation. The law prof said no, it was just his personal recommendation. Later a law school dean found me at lunch and asked why I had asked the question. I said I was seeing this obligation in K-12 and higher ed as a required component of what was considered acceptable student achievement and no one need never know. He said that I was right. It was also a component of what law schools must foster as well.

    Education administrators helping someone like Mann fight off FOIA and subpoenas would know that younger lawyers have a totally different view of the purpose of the law. They deal with accreditation as the engine of using education to change prevailing worldviews all the time.

    We really need to appreciate the extent to which all of our social institutions and organizations have been thoroughly marched through and captured in the Gramscian sense. This week just showed how it all now works in practice.

  7. Jimmy Haigh. says:

    Truly a Churchillian week: Not the beginning of the end…

  8. DHR says:

    There is a name for what the AGU crowd is doing, it’s Lysenkoism.

  9. nigelf says:

    The next President with an R after his name must demand all of academia produce all documentation and data on anything concerning climate. Failure to do so will disqualify anything they have contributed to climate science and funding will be cut. That is the type of thing that MUST be done to bring this to an end. It needs to be done in public and covered by the media so the public will see they were and are not following the scientific method, therefore all their prognostications about the future are without merit.

    Then the dismantling of the global warming industry can begin. And make it perfectly clear that the UN was up to their necks in this horrendously expensive scam to whip the public into a frenzy enough that we can tell the UN to go to hell and vacate New York.

  10. Steve Oregon says:

    This Climate Mafia thuggery extends throughout land use and transportation planning with all of the same methods used to advance various causes to impose their will upon society.
    Billions are at stake for the central planning cartel so they use whatever means necessary.

  11. Roger Sowell says:

    It will turn out ok, I believe. Nature Bats Last.

    This week, freeze and frost occurred in the farm belt’s northern part (USA). If crops are freeze-damaged, that is very bad. But, late freezes are consistent with a cooling world, not a warming world.

    Meanwhile, CO2 continues to increase. Sunspots are very few.

    AGW believers will have a most difficult time explaining the lack of warmth that leads to crop failures.

  12. Frank K. says:

    So what are the ultimate aims of the left-wing, progressive climate thugs/fascists? We are about to find out here in the U.S.:

    “President Obama’s big carbon crackdown readies for launch”

    http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/carbon-crackdown-barack-obama-106783.html

  13. Steven Mosher says:

    Overplaying the hand.

  14. Gary Pearse says:

    Anyone else unable to get links in the list to work? Is this more bullying and obfuscation?

  15. David L. Hagen says:

    Prof. Richard Lindzen writes: Climate of Fear: Global Warming Alarmists Intimidate Dissenting Scientists into Silence

    Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding. And only the most senior scientists today can stand up against this alarmist gale, and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers.

    Michael Chrighton exposed it in: State of Fear
    Mark Steyn provides further examples in Bengtsson Burners
    This “Climate of Fear” is why Mark Steyn’s counter suit against stop Michael Mann is so important.

    If you’re older, tenured, sufficiently eminent and can stand his acolytes jumping you in the parking lot and taking the hockey stick to you, you’ll acknowledge that his greatest achievement is distinguished mainly for its “misrepresentations” and “falsifications”.
    But, if you’re a younger scientist, you know that, if you cross Mann and the other climate mullahs, there goes tenure, there goes funding, there goes your career: you’ll be cut off like Briffa’s tree rings. I’ve been stunned to learn of the very real fear of retribution that pervades the climate world. That’s why I’m playing this one differently from the Maclean’s case: Dr Mann will be on the witness stand under oath, and the lies that went unchallenged in the Big Climate echo chamber will not prove so easy to get away with. I didn’t seek this battle with this disreputable man. But, when it’s over, I hope that those who work in this field will once again be free to go where the science leads.

  16. lorne50 says:

    Science is dead bring the witch to burn or dunk sad this world is yoda

  17. Peter Miller says:

    Are there actually any ethical individuals amongst the alarmist climate scientists?

    I presume there must be, but when you look at some of the antics of Lew, Mann, Jones, Cook, Trenberth, Hansen and Flannery, it seems they have deliberately set out to make an oxymoron of the term ‘ethical climate scientist’.

    Climate mafia or climate cult? When, oh when, is the world going to wake up to the machinations of these people who defile the name of science?

  18. Chuck Nolan says:

    nigelf says:
    May 17, 2014 at 10:35 am

    Then the dismantling of the global warming industry can begin. And make it perfectly clear that the UN was up to their necks in this horrendously expensive scam to whip the public into a frenzy enough that we can tell the UN to go to hell and vacate New York.
    —————————————–
    They should relocate the UN to Somalia.
    cn

  19. Pamela Gray says:

    This kind of closed minded view towards independent and unbiased critique or thought is in other circles too. Interestingly, it occurs on both sides of a debate. It nails home the fact that we are still not far from our caves. Belief in one’s chosen satan, be it the warmists’ human-CO2 or the conservatives’ public school Common Core, is everywhere. Folks, we still have a loooooong way to go before we are gifted with a generation of science minded folk equipped with scare tactic radar warning systems.

  20. Jimmy Haigh. says:

    Roger Sowell? I get you 100%.

    I have absolutely no idea what Mosher is on about.

  21. JP Miller says:

    Michael Mann was interviewed on CNBC this morning opining that Antarctic glacier melt leading to catastrophe was now unstoppable, or some such nonsense. The newscaster took in all in with worried seriousness.

    Where is Fox — or any MSM — to understand there is a counter-story as per this blog post that’s important and worth telling. It’s like Watergate is happening live and the CREEPs are being interviewed and complaining that they are not yet winning the election and yet nobody is pointing to the break-in or the other dirt tricks being perpetrated.

    I’ve never witnessed such public insanity in my life — and I do business in 20+ developing countries where corruption and public lying is considered normal behavior.

  22. Mosher:

    “Overplaying the hand.”

    You mean the alarmists are overplaying their hand? Or are you saying Anthony/Ridley are overplaying their hand? If the latter, are you suggesting that some of the items in the list are not correct? By many counts, there are many more shenanigans that could be properly listed — it is a pretty conservative list set forth in the post.

  23. Pamela Gray says:

    Stephen M, this isn’t a simple matter of overplaying your hand. It’s more like trying to engage in fair play but the opposition has stacked the deck and fixed the game. Scientists should be given a free hand and open road to explore, observe, test, refute, or confirm in a public forum, not given a marked deck of cards to play in some back alley secret society measured by who gets in and who stays out.

  24. motvikten says:

    I followed the link by Frank K and found:

    “Its fate will be crucial to Obama’s legacy, and it may give the U.S. added leverage at major climate negotiations next year in Paris.”

    The USA and the EU are using climate change for their energy policy on the global arena. They fight China, India, and the bottom billion (as in SS Sahara) with the help of “climate change science”

    I see it as a kind of Informal Imperialism. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_Empire)
    IPCC, WB, OECD, IEA …………

  25. Pamela Gray says:

    Apologies. Steven with a v.

  26. Chuck Nolan says:

    Peter Miller says:
    May 17, 2014 at 11:14 am
    Are there actually any ethical individuals amongst the alarmist climate scientists?
    ———————————-
    I doubt it.
    Not when Peter Gleick and his ilk are proof the alarmist will lie, steal and destroy people’s careers for their cause.
    They have no problem with this lack of professional ethics.
    He’s a hero to the alarmists.
    Are they helping to lift the world’s innocent poor out of harsh and very short lives due to energy poverty?
    I wonder if alarmists just point and laugh at the suffering they cause?
    cn

  27. Anthony Watts says:

    All links to CG emails have been updated.

  28. John Whitman says:

    A. Watts said,

    “The events we witnessed this week are indications that academic bureaucracy and the small cadre of “team climate science” hasn’t learned one damn thing since Climategate. For them, it’s business as usual with impunity.”

    - – - – - – - -

    I concur, and to keep in perspective the situation, here are some words from more than 40 years ago before the ideology of CAGW became significant.

    [T]here are, indeed, few things that are more frightening than the steadily increasing prestige of scientifically minded brain trusters in the councils of government during the last decades. The trouble is not that they are cold-blooded enough to “think the unthinkable,” but that they do not think.
    Quoted from ‘On Violence’ (1970) by Hannah Arendt

    “What I propose, therefore, is very simple: it is nothing more than to think what we are doing”
    Quoted from the Prologue of book ‘The Human Condition’ (1958) by Hannah Arendt

    Note: Hannah Arendt, whether one agreed with all of her prolific work, guaranteed a stimulation of fundamental discussions.

    John

  29. Jimmy Haigh. says:

    “I wonder if alarmists just point and laugh at the suffering they cause?”

    I think that ‘le mot de jour’ is: “prolly”…

  30. Gary says:

    In retrospect these numbskulls would have been far better off early on to share their data, engage in vigorous debate with critics, and resist the siren call of advocacy. First, they would be able to do their research rather than engage in these skirmishes. Second, by opening up the question of what causes the warming to more than CO2, they might have encouraged MORE funding to figure out what’s going on, or at least more lines or inquiry. Third, they would avoid the embarrassments they’ve inflicted on themselves. Fourth, a generally sympathetic public would not be growing more doubtful as their bad behavior becomes known. Fifth, their critics would have made their science better (iron sharpens iron as the aphorism says). Sixth, their legacy would have been more honorable than it’s turning out to be.

  31. Steve Oregon says:

    Steven Mosher says: May 17, 2014 at 10:58 am Overplaying the hand.

    That’s such a common response by the government thug class. It comes in many forms of condescending poo pooing of resistance.
    It’s the you’re overreacting, overplaying, anti-science, anti-government, small minded, backward thinking, unqualified, dubiously motivated, suspect intentions or any other marginalizing slap.
    Anything to try and stifle the dissent while fluffing up their superior and institutionalized selves.

    I bet Mosher enjoyed his little snipe with that stupid smirk on his face.

  32. James Ard says:

    This is a post for the ages. Next year, when the fraud has finally ground to a halt, the incurious reporters who never saw it coming can reference this post to figure out why it all went wrong.

  33. Gunga Din says:

    johnnyrvf says:
    May 17, 2014 at 10:20 am

    Demi-Clods! Very funny! Sadly the facism of the Klimate Klub is not.

    =======================================================================
    Don’t you mean “Katastrophic Klimate Klub”?

  34. John McClure says:

    David L. Hagen posted this link on Climate Etc.
    Its a great read from 2005.

    “Michael Crichton’s testimony to the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works in 2005; vs Michael E. Mann”
    http://www.epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=246766

  35. Stephen Richards says:

    Steven Mosher says:

    May 17, 2014 at 10:58 am

    Overplaying the hand.

    Who? You ?

  36. John McClure says:

    Stephen Richards says:
    May 17, 2014 at 1:03 pm

    Steven Mosher says:
    Overplaying the hand.
    ======
    Steven Mosher is understating the situation.

    Jump the Shark comes to mind.

    Until evidence related to Dr. Bengtsson’s statements is made public, no conclusion should be drawn as to the true cause.

    The Intimidation is clearly a legal matter before an English court. I’d be very careful not to turn the courts attention to you or any comment on this thread.

  37. TheMightyQuinn says:

    Do they learn how to goose-step in hobnail boots at their climate conferences?

  38. F. Ross says:

    Defenders of the Faith = CCCN: Climate Change Cosa Nostra (?)

  39. Regarding coercion. Over here (EU) as from next year every new car by law must be fitted with a satellite transponder (for Galileo, the EU satNav+ system). It’ll cost at least £100. But here’s the real horror: unlike normal satnavs, this also controls your car’s ignition. Your car can be switched off at will via the satellite. They can track exactly where you are, what speed, how many miles you do etc (for which we shall doubtless be taxed).
    I am certain, as the EU continues to falter, they will start rationing car use – for ‘planet saving’ reasons of course. You go to start your car – nothing happens, as they’ve switched you off. I live in the UK but our puppet ‘government’ cannot do anything about it.

  40. John McClure says:

    Philip Foster (Revd) says:
    May 17, 2014 at 1:22 pm
    ========
    I have to admit I love watching Top Gear. They routinely complain about silly standards but the coercion occurs at the top of the policy decision making.

    You’re contending with compliance to policies.

    LOL, love to see the Mann on the course for a run. : )

  41. dynam01 says:

    John McClure sez: “Until evidence related to Dr. Bengtsson’s statements is made public, no conclusion should be drawn as to the true cause.”

    The IOP has already stated the true cause of ERL’s spiking the Bengtsson paper. “Summarising, the simplistic comparison of ranges from AR4, AR5, and Otto et al, combined with the statement they are inconsistent is less then helpful, actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of “errors” and worse from the climate sceptics media side.” Thus, in this referee’s view, it is an “error” to compare model predictions with observations.

    For having the temerity to expose the models for what they are, Bengtsson is bullied into resigning from the GWPF. To liken this to McCarthyism is an injustice to McCarthy: there actually were communists in the State Dept.

  42. Bob_L says:

    Mann has chosen the wrong foe in his battle with Mark Steyn. Time after time before, Mann has used the threat of suit and actual law suits to silence critics. Steyn’s previous battles for free speech in Canada taught him that you can’t shut up.
    I am supporting Steyn’s effort and I encourage each person here to do the same.

    http://www.steynstore.com/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/msteyn/sc/order.cgi?fromid=order.cgi&storeid=*20d8b94cf50031447ae51bbc72a196e8a0b7&cert=gift

  43. Bruce Cobb says:

    Don’t forget Mann’s warning about Revkin to colleagues in one of the Climategate emails:
    “p.s. be a bit careful about what information you send to Andy and what emails you copy him in on. He’s not as predictable as we’d like”
    Controlling the message.

  44. jeremyp99 says:

    Jimmy Haigh. says:
    May 17, 2014 at 11:23 am
    Roger Sowell? I get you 100%.

    I have absolutely no idea what Mosher is on about.
    =============================================
    He likes to be cryptic &/or oblique. For whatever reason. Leaves me cold as well. Why bother?

  45. Dean of umass to graduating class “climate change is the most important issue you will face” very low groan was heard coming from the grads, there is hope, but this is what our kids are being subjected to,along with the gov of mass saying the same. Outragous

  46. John McClure says:

    dynam01 says:
    May 17, 2014 at 1:41 pm
    ========
    With respect, I believe you are missing the point.

    The top line take away is, reviewers are focused on or influenced by the political aspects instead of the science.

    Wow, who knew, reviewers are human and are subject to influence both general and specific ; )

    What’s your next expectation for “Review” and what made you change a statement because of IT to get a “passing grade”?

    Unless you want more of this stupidity, isn’t it time to look closely at Legal standards and practices in science?

  47. Chad Wozniak says:

    At least a few of the political class are awakening to the implications of Obama’s war on energy, albeit it may be a matter of self-preservation for some: red-state Democrat Senators Manchin, Landrieu, Heitkamp. However, it seems to be emerging more and more purely as a Democrat/leftist/alarmist versus Republican/conservative/skeptic issue. This is apparent in conservative political blogs and on-line news zines, and Marco Rubio declared his skepticism last week. if the Republicans can make lower-income people understand that AGW advocacy hurts them first and worst, and at least some of the less environmentalists can be shown how much “renewable” energy really is dirtier and less sustainable than fossil fuels – which it certainly is, besides being a needless added cost – perhaps some resistance can be mounted.

    And one state, at least – Wyoming – has banned the teaching of global warming in the schools. Hopefully others will follow, in the same way as some are now pushing back against gun control(Georgia and Missouri).

    It is definitely heading towards a showdown between science and liberty, on the one hand, and tyranny and witchcraft on the other, and one that could ultimately be decided only by armed force.

  48. Steven Mosher says:

    Of course you guys have no idea.

    Apply the tools of skepticism to the post. Then you will see. Dont expect me to do your work for you.

    REPLY: Then don’t comment here any more Mr. Mosher, if all you want to offer is riddles while on the other hand constantly demanding others show all data and work. I don’t coddle such hypocrisy. If you want to explain please continue.

    [added, people can't use "tools of skepticism" to figure your position out, because you swing both ways] – Anthony

  49. John Shade says:

    Reynolds over at Instapundit has this apercu: ‘If you want to be trusted as nonpolitical experts, don’t act like lying partisans.’. See: http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/188850/#respond

  50. John McClure says:

    Chad Wozniak says:
    May 17, 2014 at 2:54 pm
    ==========
    Why does anyone find this topic hard to understand?

    We have a handful of scientists who have decided the Law doesn’t apply to them.

    This isn’t a tough situation to fix?

  51. Nick Stokes says:

    Chad Wozniak says: May 17, 2014 at 2:54 pm
    “And one state, at least – Wyoming – has banned the teaching of global warming in the schools. Hopefully others will follow…

    It is definitely heading towards a showdown between science and liberty…

    Yes…

  52. M Simon says:

    We really need to appreciate the extent to which all of our social institutions and organizations have been thoroughly marched through and captured in the Gramscian sense.

    Their problem is a difficult one – what happens when their framework doesn’t match reality?

  53. M Simon says:

    The next President with an R after his name must demand

    I think you would do better with an “L”. But that is a long ways off.

  54. David Ball says:

    Leave it to Stokes to pick up Mosher’s yokes,…..

    Otherwise known as “obfuscating on thin ice”.

  55. M Simon says:

    Belief in one’s chosen satan, be it the warmists’ human-CO2 or the conservatives’ public school Common Core, is everywhere.

    Re: common core. You are confusing models with reality. The standards may be excellent – their implementation may be something else. And in fact is.

  56. milodonharlani says:

    M Simon says:
    May 17, 2014 at 3:14 pm

    Depends upon the R, some of whom are small L libertarians. And upon the L. Libertarian Presidential candidate Gary Johnson opposed mandatory cap & trade, but “believes” in “climate change”. That might mean nothing more than being convinced that man-made CO2 can affect atmospheric temperature.

    He wrote this on Reddit:

    Government exists to protect us against individuals, groups, and corporations that would do us harm. Rules and regulations should exist to accommodate this. The EPA protects us against those that would pollute, and without them a lot more polluters would be allowed to pollute.

  57. John McClure says:

    Maybe I’m one of the few but I enjoy kim’s comments on Climate Etc.

    This is about a very General issue not your pet peeve in the specifics.

    The Methodology either works or it doesn’t. The Methodology is key to all the silly rants about specifics.

  58. John McClure says:

    “Stay Focused My Friends” ; )

  59. george e. conant says:

    The further along the weather proceeds to fail the models and the louder the CAGW media and academic machines scream at the public while beheading scientists and journalists seeking truth via the scientific method and fact checking , there will come a time/moment when vast numbers of the public will become very angry. I do not know anyone who likes being lied to by their trusted authorities. The noble cause lies as justified by the “cause” will surely cause a vast rejection of support for both the academic institutions and government agencies found guilty of fraud, coercion, threats of violence, termination of employment, ruination of careers etc. of honest scientists and reporters. I agree this is war. The bankroll behind all this action must be exposed. Then we can all see who and what is driving this war against science and free thinking and self determination. I have plenty of popcorn at the ready!

  60. Alan Robertson says:

    re: Mosher’s comment: I took it that he was commenting on the post immediately prior to his comment, which spoke of POTUS plans to crackdown on coal, but who knows, Steven certainly hasn’t been forthcoming.
    Frank K. says:
    May 17, 2014 at 10:57 am

  61. Tanya Aardman says:

    You can easily prove the hypocrisy of the PTB by comparing the fates of two virtually identical islands – The Maldives and Diego Garcia. The Maldivans are poster children for global warming but only a few hundred miles away on the same continental shelf at the same height above sea all the Chagossians were forcibly removed from their homeland.

  62. Eric Barnes says:

    Nick Stokes says:
    May 17, 2014 at 3:09 pm
    Chad Wozniak says: May 17, 2014 at 2:54 pm
    “And one state, at least – Wyoming – has banned the teaching of global warming in the schools. Hopefully others will follow…

    It is definitely heading towards a showdown between science and liberty…

    Yes…

    More like “speculative extrapolation by models” vs. Liberty. Calling it science is misleading at best.

    It’s not hard to figure out what side you are Nick. No need to fill us in.

  63. Pat Frank says:

    The campaign of intellectual thugs against skeptical scientists would not succeed were it not for cowardly publishers, journal editors who do not have the courage of their convictions, and the willful silence of the major scientific organizations. It’s a perfect storm of failed principle.

    If or when the heated demonizations of AGW-skeptical scientists leads to a physical attack in public or at home, exacted by some eco-nutter for ‘waging war against the earth’ or ‘crimes against humanity,’ the fault will lay right at the feet of these people and these organizations. They had the chance to exercise their moral backbones and signally failed to do so.

    And it’s all so obvious and banal. Hannah Arendt described it in Germany. Robert Conquest described it in the Soviet Union. It was on display in Mao’s Cultural Revolution, and goes on right now in North Korea. Exclusion, degradation, dehumanization, execution. It all follows. If we’re lucky, we’ll avoid any instance of that last. But we’re now being nibbled around step three.

  64. Nick Stokes says:

    Eric Barnes says: May 17, 2014 at 6:48 pm
    “More like “speculative extrapolation by models” vs. Liberty.”

    And Liberty is where you go to jail for teaching global warming?

  65. Eric Barnes says:

    Nick Stokes says:
    May 17, 2014 at 7:08 pm

    And Liberty is where you go to jail for teaching global warming?

    Very nice. You always manage to exceed expectations.

  66. Legatus says:

    I don’t think you people understand where this is going, or see what is happening rapidly all around you. Where before there was talk about how “skeptics” were bad and should be punished, now there is a regular movement where “undesirables” of all kinds are fired and then blackballed, businesses boycotted, and other actual hostile actions are taking place, simply because of people exercising their freedom of speech. It has gone from mere talk to literal outright war. War, you say, how can this be called war? One word, blockade, a tactic in war where you hurt the enemy by economic means.

    This is now seen not just aimed at skeptics, but at people who write undesirable books (ones that, for instance, don’t agree with the gay agenda), who publish games (one game has now apologized for only including male and female in it’s options), at people who have large and successful businesses (they are trying to starve out farms from “large agribusinesses” in California simply because they are large, that being their only excuse), at anyone who says anything they don’t like even privately ( see Stern, and even Sterns wife, who did not say anything of the kind, simply because her name is Stern), in short, the idea of boycott and firing for using your freedom of speech is rapidly gaining acceptance and is being practiced right now.

    Is it really that bad, will it all blow away? Well, has this sort of thing happened before, and how did that come out? First, a little tidbit from the french revolution:
    Prior to the bloody Terror of ’93, in the Republic of Letters there was, from 1765 to 1780, a dry terror of which the Encyclopedia was the Committee of Public Safety and d’Alembert was the Robespierre. It mowed down reputations as the other chopped off heads: its guillotine was defamation, “infamy” as it was then called: The term, originating with Voltaire [écrasez l’infâme!], was used in the provincial societies with legal precision. “To brand with infamy” was a well-defined operation consisting of investigation, discussion, judgment, and finally execution, which meant the public sentence of “contempt.”
    So we see that it has happened before, and led to “The Terror” with executions, followed by dictatorship and war. But perhaps that was just a one off? Well, it happened again in Germany, first there was talk, then ostracizing, then bricks thrown through windows and book burnings, then being forced to wear a mark, then death camps. In short, this won’t end well unless we end it now.

    Is what they are doing right now really that bad? Well, then you don’t understand that being boycotted or fired makes it impossible to feed a family. In other words, they want to hurt children. They are, therefore, CHILD ABUSERS and should be treated as such.

    Whenever, you see this happening, by anyone, anywhere, for any reason (any boycotting or firing for free speech) tell them this:
    Do you still abuse children?
    I mean, you do know that boycotting or firing will mean that they can no longer feed their family, their children, don’t you?
    Is that what you want?
    Do you like to see children homeless and starving, does it make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside?
    And you not only want to hurt the person who, dare I say it, exercised their freedom of speech to say something you don’t like, you also want to hurt the whole business, even people who didn’t say anything, so that those people also are unable to feed their families, due to being out of work?
    You must really like hurting children.
    So, I’ll ask you again…
    DO YOU STILL ABUSE CHILDREN.

    And if they continue with their boycott or firings, or agree that such is a good thing, treat them exactly like you would anyone you find abusing a child, for that is what they are doing. Make sure everyone around them finds out what a wonderful human being they are. You shouldn’t just not associate with them, you should actively appose them. If they speak, shout them down, that is what they do, now it’s your turn.

    We were tolerant, thinking that they would return the favor, thinking that it was the right thing to do. Now they have shown us that tolerance was the furthest thing from their minds. They have shown that tolerance is no longer a virtue. They have shown that they want war. Fine, give ‘em war. Remember, war does not decide who is right, war decides who is left.

    Too much, too extreme? Well then you tell me exactly how being fired and boycotted will not hurt the children. And what do you do when they want to hurt your children, or any children, do you just stand around and fidget? They say that all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing, I say, if they do nothing, they are neither good, nor are they men.

  67. lorne50 says:

    Steve Oregon says:
    May 17, 2014 at 11:52 am
    Steven Mosher says: May 17, 2014 at 10:58 am Overplaying the hand.

    That’s such a common response by the government thug class. It comes in many forms of condescending poo pooing of resistance.
    It’s the you’re overreacting, overplaying, anti-science, anti-government, small minded, backward thinking, unqualified, dubiously motivated, suspect intentions or any other marginalizing slap.
    Anything to try and stifle the dissent while fluffing up their superior and institutionalized selves.

    I bet Mosher enjoyed his little snipe with that stupid smirk on his face.

    +10000 and I put the comment up for repeat ;>)

  68. Chad Wozniak says:

    @legatus -
    I agree, we can’t tolerate the level of intolerance now coming from the AGW crowd and from the left in general.

  69. ossqss says:

    So what does a climate realist do?

    Fold or make a move.

    I don’t know about anyone else, but I am tired of the perpetual hype.

    I got questions from my , near 90 year old, mother about the glaciers in antarctical this week.

    That is just wrong.

    And the report she saw on CNN was just wrong.

    But yet it sunk in as fact and it was not!

    You cannot counteract such propaganda without organization.

    Why do you smart Cats avoid such?

    Who is going to do it for you lazy people?

    It is your life these unfacts impacts, no?

    You gonna fix it on your own?

    Think about it……..

  70. Steve koch says:

    Very interesting, inspiring post by Anthony.

    Interesting history lesson about the French Revolution from Legatus. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

    I hope that Mosher is not banned because he is sometimes cryptic.

  71. Joel O'Bryan says:

    Other thuggery includes the likes of WH Science advisor Holdren to hold a veto on the purse strings at the NSF vis-a-vis grants.

    i.e. If you don’t follow the orthodoxy (AGW), there are subtle ways to ensure your next grant renewal package gets a low score.

  72. gbaikie says:

    – ossqss says:
    May 17, 2014 at 8:37 pm

    So what does a climate realist do?

    Fold or make a move.

    I don’t know about anyone else, but I am tired of the perpetual hype.

    I got questions from my , near 90 year old, mother about the glaciers in antarctical this week.

    That is just wrong.

    And the report she saw on CNN was just wrong.

    But yet it sunk in as fact and it was not!

    You cannot counteract such propaganda without organization. –

    Look, this kind of thing has been going on for a long time.
    News was scaring people about the new Ice age in 1970′s.
    But as general rule, if reporters lips are moving they are lying- or what applies to politicians
    also applies news people. But also news reporter are less informed about everything which vaguely important so they in addition tend to be dumber then typical politicians.
    So they lying and they are stupid and they are constantly distracted by all kinds of nonsense.

    So limit your time watching them.
    Find a hobby. Read better fiction. Breathe.

  73. Santa Baby says:

    After reading the climate gate leaks it’s more flavor of the concerned political activists?

  74. jeremyp99 says:

    Steven Mosher says:
    May 17, 2014 at 2:56 pm
    Of course you guys have no idea.
    ==============================

    How could when dealing with an ego as inflated as yours, Mr. Mosher?

  75. Keith says:

    Gatekeeping of publication in journals, attempting to have editors ousted or pushed out of their academic position for allowing alternative views to CAGW goes back to 2003 and beyond.

    THis link is to the wikipedia (consensus sympathetic) record of the push against Chris de Freitas as an editor of Climate Science.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_and_Baliunas_controversy

    Steve McIntyre and Ross McKittrick could tell us more first hand.

  76. elmer says:

    This is all leading up to Paris 2015 where they hope to get done what they couldn’t in Copenhagen. Stay strong.

  77. Legatus says:

    Steve koch says:
    Interesting history lesson about the French Revolution from Legatus. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

    An even more interesting hisatory lesson from the frewnch Revolution:

    Describing the salons of the philosophes prior to the French Revolution, Augustin Cochin writes

    “…this little State was the exact image of the larger one with only one difference—it was not real. Its citizens had neither direct interest nor responsible involvement in the affairs they discussed. Their decrees were only wishes, their battles conversations, their studies games. It was the city of thought…

    Constant debates, elections, delegations, correspondence, and intrigue took place in their midst, and a veritable public life developed through them.

    Whereas in the real world the arbiter of any notion is practical testing and its goal what it actually achieves, in this world the arbiter is the opinion of others and its aim their approval. That is real which others see, that true which they say, that good of which they approve. Thus the natural order is reversed: opinion here is the cause and not, as in real life, the effect.

    Sounds like the internet…

    This is why I believe we must act NOW, to stop this culture of boycotts and firings, the internet and modern communications makes all this happen much faster than in history. And if history is any guide, this isn’t the price of liberty (although it is that to), it is the price of your life.

  78. Jimbo says:

    Don’t forget dome of the proposed treatments for sceptics. From asbestos on face and trials to imprisonment and execution.

  79. Jimbo says:

    “Don’t forget dome…..”
    should be
    “Don’t forget some…”

Comments are closed.