Professor’s fellowship terminated for speaking out on global warming in the Wall Street Journal

Profile

From Climate Depot: Fired for ‘Diverging’ on Climate: Progressive Professor’s fellowship ‘terminated’ after WSJ OpEd calling global warming ‘unproved science’

Professor’s fellowship ‘terminated’ after WSJ OpEd declaring ‘the left wants to stop industrialization—even if the hypothesis of catastrophic, man-made global warming is false’. Prof. Caleb Rossiter: ‘Just two days after I published a piece in the Wall Street Journal calling for Africa to be allowed the ‘all of the above’ energy strategy we have in the U.S., the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) terminated my 23-year relationship with them…because my analysis and theirs ‘diverge.’

IPS email of ‘termination’ to Rossiter: ‘We would like to inform you that we are terminating your position as an Associate Fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies…Unfortunately, we now feel that your views on key issues, including climate science, climate justice, and many aspects of U.S. policy to Africa, diverge so significantly from ours’

In an exclusive interview with Climate Depot, Dr. Rossiter explained:

“If people ever say that fears of censorship for ‘climate change’ views are overblown, have them take a look at this: Just two days after I published a piece in the Wall Street Journal calling for Africa to be allowed the ‘all of the above’ energy strategy we have in the U.S., the Institute for Policy Studies terminated my 23-year relationship with them…because my analysis and theirs ‘diverge.’”

“I have tried to get [IPS] to discuss and explain their rejection of my analysis,’ Rossiter told Climate Depot. “When I countered a claim of ‘rapidly accelerating’ temperature change with the [UN] IPCC’s own data’, showing the nearly 20-year temperature pause— the best response I ever got was ‘Caleb, I don’t have time for this.’”

 

More here: http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/06/12/fired-for-diverging-on-climate-progressive-professors-fellowship-terminated-after-wsj-oped-calling-global-warming-unproved-science/

 

About these ads

164 thoughts on “Professor’s fellowship terminated for speaking out on global warming in the Wall Street Journal

  1. So, Rossiter is willing to call IPS corrupt only when they cut him off the payroll? Was it corrupt before that, did he notice the corruption and blow the whistle on it, or did he participate in the corruption as its employee?

    There is no injustice in cutting him off the payroll. He was paid to advocate a certain position, truth be damned, and he stopped doing his job.

  2. Jim Ryan says:
    June 12, 2014 at 9:24 pm

    I don’t see the word ‘corrupt’ in the story. Please don’t misdirect what was written.

  3. The climate obsessed are operating peculiar institutions. If those toiling in the climate obsessed’s peculiar institutions dare speak openly, they are shunned at best, fired or face having their careers wrecked more and more.

  4. We saw the same sort of activity in the Third Reich and in the former Soviet Union. The Warmistas are truly the inheritors of the Cloak of Fascism and Oppression of Thought.

  5. No time for what? Science?

    Are the rest of their opinions similarly flawed?

    Policy analysis in isolation from reality? Is this a new idea?

  6. Since I can’t think of any escape for their egos that could actually happen, I am afraid they will go even lower than this. They are just too addicted to CAGW.

    The differential between who they are and who they think they are has got to be some kind of record.

  7. Left wing non-profits, right wing non-profits, both have narrow agendas. Don’t be surprised if they stamp out any internal dissent with their agenda. It is part of our politics these days. Don’t think you get a wrongful termination lawsuit if you are dismissed from a policy group with an agenda when you turn against part of their agenda.

    Of course they don’t have time to argue tedious facts with Caleb. They have a position, and employees of ideological groups don’t get to go against their position without consequences. The mission of such groups is their reason for being.

    This kind of behaviour is bad, but certainly understandable, considering the group’s mission.

    This behaviour is worse when governments do it. You can’t easily terminate a government employee for publicly dissenting from the government’s position, but you can make life tougher for him or her, and my sense is that government employees on both sides of the Atlantic have gotten that message.

  8. Seems Ghandi’s part three is getting stronger, but it will get worse before it gets better. There is common ground. Wonder why it is so hard for many to find?

    Name calling, obfuscation and diversionary commentary on both sides is a waste of time.

    Thanks to Anth@ony for all the posts. Such an education.

  9. J Ryan has raised a good point, would Rossiter still be advocating for IPS if they kept paying him? We are at a critical point in this saga and the world needs scientists to start speaking their conscience and stop worrying about their careers. When the truth is revealed their careers will be guaranteed.

  10. well he should have known that IPS is run by left wing loons, akin to Greenpeace, so what did he expect?

    The fact that they are sooooo intolerant of any critical questions from within their ranks shows that they are tightly blinkered left-wing loons… oh, but I am being redundant.

  11. Notice how proponents of the cause bristle at the idea of conspiracy among their ranks. Disproportionately. Nothing to see here. Move away from the issue.

  12. I am sick of the Left ramming the word “justice” down everyone’s throats as a means of pacifying opposition. “HOW DARE YOU NOT WANT (simply fill-in ‘exploited’ topic of your choosing! lol) JUSTICE?” No one stops to think, “Wait, who are they seeking ‘justice’ against? Oh, wait…me. I’m the evil one. By merely existing, apperantly I’m standing in their way of people holding hands and forming drum circles; of Gaia slipping into a peaceful, forever chilled, and never warmed, slumber.” It’s beautiful in its own way, silencing opposition without even positing an argument.

    The Greenies should keep this up. Soon, even those apathetic on the climate issue will have their minds made up by these Alinsky-like tactics. Honestly, that’s probably how this will be decided. They have set up their defenses enough to where it might have to be brought down from within. That seems to be coming along nicely. :)

  13. Is this his day job? I don’t think so.
    He disagrees with the captain.
    So, take a walk.

  14. Are you surprised Prof.? You’re in the wrong company. Try the Heartland Institute whose fellowship includes Fred Singer, Craig Idso, Bob Carter. Be in good company

  15. Then maybe the USA government under Obama, should break off diplomatic relations with Australia, because our current Prime Minister once called the science underpinning climate change “crap.” :-)

  16. Looking at the IPS web site shows that climate change is only a portion of what they are involved in. Social change and justice are major components. Was Rossiter,s main interest with IPS focused on social issues, global warming, or a combination. Does IPS require all members to never utter a contrary viewpoint that contradicts the IPS viewpoint? He was there for 23 years. This sounds like harsh punishment for the crime of having different thoughts.

  17. I gather from this that the “Institute for Policy Studies” which no doubt counts itself as a “progressive” organisation apparently has racism and covert discrimination as one of its key policy planks.

    No doubt also the Institute’s racial and discrimination policies will be directed toward those from other non white underdeveloped regions of the world who only want living standards similar to those enjoyed by the members of the Institute for Policy Studies.

  18. Jim Ryan says: June 12, 2014 at 9:24 pm

    “There is no injustice in cutting him off the payroll. He was paid to advocate a certain position, truth be damned, and he stopped doing his job.”

    Was he paid? Their website says “Most work on a volunteer basis”.

  19. goldminor says:
    June 12, 2014 at 10:53 pm

    Looking at the IPS web site shows that climate change is only a portion of what they are involved in. Social change and justice are major components.

    Yes, I noticed that, too. The IPS probably fights poverty in Africa – unless such fight conflicts with a belief in CAGW.

  20. ‘rapidly accelerating’

    Lots of laughs. Love the terms alarmists use. I’ve even seen ‘ever accelerating’, which is physically impossible.

    Its not whether its true, but that it adds to the effect, and that the first term is redundant (kind of like wet water), and not even true. Gravity is a constant acceleration at 9.8m-2, but climate change can be linear, accelerating, rapidly accelerating, decelerating, rapidly decelerating, or pause/static. Moreover it can jump from one to another. The observations say pause, which isn’t rapidly accelerating, but this gets in the way of policy. What a laugh.

  21. I’d say the good Professors credibility has just increased a hundred fold. He’s mailed exactly what is wrong with organisations like the IPS, and they hate him for it. As he was an ‘Associate’ of this pseudo-institute, I would doubt he was ever ‘remunerated’ beyond being able to claim some ‘expenses’ when he has done work on their behalf. That is how most ‘institutes’ work.

    What it does expose is the ignorance of those who support these ‘Institutes’ whose agendas are blatantly political and unscientific. Good on the Professor.

  22. wobble says:
    June 12, 2014 at 11:21 pm
    goldminor says:
    June 12, 2014 at 10:53 pm

    Looking at the IPS web site shows that climate change is only a portion of what they are involved in. Social change and justice are major components.

    Yes, I noticed that, too. The IPS probably fights poverty in Africa – unless such fight conflicts with a belief in CAGW.
    _____

    They fight poverty alright, via depopulation, and CAGW is the ‘scientific’ cover for it.
    Skeptics want to fight poverty via economic growth.

    The Green Khmer have a very sinister agenda to accomplish.

  23. “Climate justice?”

    Since they claim we have man made climate, when will they give me a warmer climate in Norway and maybe a colder elsewhere where it’s to warm?

  24. It makes you wonder how many climate-change skeptics are pressured into keeping quiet, or who pretend to be part of the “consensus” just to protect their jobs and reputation. There’s no telling what lengths alarmists will go to just to punish those who dare point out how little science is actually behind their expensive, one-dimensional facade.

  25. not being a rightwing CAGW sceptic myself (tho respectful of others’ viewpoints), i often draw attention to the same issues Rossiter focuses on in his WSJ article, because i believe there’s no point in simply speaking to politically like-minded folk.

    i also draw attention to the MSM & the CAGW team (especially its psyops arm’s) attempts to portray CAGW scepticism as a rightwing thing,which they do in order to keep the left onside. so many people i know, whether left, independent, libertarian or whatever label u choose, are highly sceptical of CAGW, and we need to forget the political labels if we want to rescue the scientific method in the case of climate.

    it would seem Rossiter actually made an impression at Australia’s The Conversation website,
    (which is operated by The Conversation Media Group, a not-for-profit educational charity owned by The Conversation Trust, funded by the university and research sector, government and business). The Conversation is notorious for its CAGW advocacy, so i will add that nothing whatsoever came of Cory Zanoni, Community Manager at The Conversation’s promise to pass the Rosssiter article on to the editors “and see if anything comes of it”.

    24 April: The Conversation: Cleaning up climate comments
    As part of our approach to improving comments on The Conversation, we’re paying particular attention to comments on climate change.
    We know comments on this topic can often be derailed, deliberately or otherwise…BLAH BLAH
    Comment by Smudge Martens, engineer – about 1 month ago:
    I realize that it’s late to comment on this issue. But my sense is that many people don’t understand what drives the typical liberal/progressive climate change skeptic. (I extend a courtesy by not employing the self-righteous and offensive “climate change denier” label.) Fewer than one person in 100,000 has the knowledge and experience to independently analyze the climate change debate; we choose “experts” whose analysis and attitudes resonate with a sense of competence and objectivity. For me that expert is Dr. James Lovelock of Gaia fame. In the last few years Dr. Lovelock has become concerned that the product of computer models and predictions have been lackluster. Like many progressive/liberals he’s concerned that the Climate Change issue ***may*** have been hijacked as a lever to pursue obvious political ideologies – as illustrated in this recent Wall Street Journal Opinion piece…
    http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303380004579521791400395288?mod=trending_now_3

    comment by Cory Zanoni, Community Manager at The Conversation
    Smudge –
    Not late at all – I see everything that’s posted to these blogposts and we’re always tweaking our approach to moderation. It’s an open discussion, after all.
    ***You raise an interesting point (and an even more interesting article – I’ll pass it onto our editors and see if anything comes of it). The rationale behind a post is important and it’s something we need to keep in mind as we moderate. Thanks for raising the issue…

    comment by Gordon Alderson, Management Consultant:
    smudge –
    Thank you so much for your comment and especially for including the link to Caleb Rossiter’s article.
    I for one would welcome an opportunity to have a “Conversation” with others, including with Cory and the team at “The Conversation”, based on the Rossiter article.

    http://theconversation.com/cleaning-up-climate-comments-25914

  26. In recent years, the urgency of the climate crisis has led to an increased IPS focus on preventing environmental collapse. IPS is partnering with the International Forum on Globalization to critique false solutions to global warming and to promote transformational policies that emphasize sustainability, equity, and protecting the “commons.”

    IPS website

  27. Hard to figure how leftists, claiming to care about third worlders, have consistently used climate as a stick to smash third world economic progress. Yes, yes, they are anti-capitalists first, but you would think they might care SOMETHING about the lives of the poor. But no, they never actually do. It is all moral posturing with no actual substance.

    You’d think the obvious dishonesty of it would discomfit their moral narcissism. It is a strange kind of brain that is all about pretending to care, but actually doesn’t. All for what? This is it. This is all they do, and its just one big self-contradictory imposture.

    It’s as irrational as the kids walking around with their pants falling down. They do it because they have been doing it, and other people do it, and within their circles it is seen as the thing to do, but at no point is it ever anchored to any real world rationale. All it does is impose big and obvious real world costs, but somehow it continues. The disconnect from reality is so complete that something very costly that has absolutely no upside just continues apace as if it made perfect sense.

  28. I just thought of something extraordinarily trivial. Take the IPS and add a little slanted line under one of the letters. You know which one.

    The important and not trivial point, however, is that the rot comes from the top. If the organizations at the very top echelons of society can do it, well then, everybody can. We know what’s been done at the IRS. We know what’s been done to the AP. We know none of the dozens of survivors of Benghazi have ever been spoken to. We know about extraordinary FBI scrutiny of political opponents over trivial matters.

    And what happens at the very top filters down as it has here. Human progress stagnates. Standards vary between those connected and those who aren’t. Useful talents are suppressed if they’re a threat. If society doesn’t unravel then at best it becomes tenuously civil with misdirected simmering anger.

    The political left owes some very big apologies to society. But first they have to recognize they owe them. Otherwise it becomes too late.

  29. Alec Rawls says:
    June 13, 2014 at 12:23 am

    Hard to figure how leftists, claiming to care about third worlders,
    ————-
    If the Third worlders had access to energy in the same volume we have, very soon there would be no third worlders and no need for the organisations that ‘protect’ them.

    Funny old world?

  30. ‘Climate justice’, as prescribed by the Climate Inquisition.

    “No dissenting views permitted, reality checks not allowed, all must be subservient to our interpretations – or else!”

    Such is climate science today, where biased computer models and dodgy dogma always trump real life observations.

  31. Despite the USA being the land of the free and the home of the brave, that concept doesn’t seem to extend to the IPS. Such behaviour has all the hallmarks of socialism gone to extremes.
    Unfortunately the extreme left wing Greens agenda is not confined to the USA. In Australia members of the former Communist Party of Australia joined the Greens after the Soviet Union collapsed and are now in Parliament pushing their agenda. We call them Watermelons for good reason. Green on the outside, red on the inside. Modern day Communism in disguise.
    I thought McCarthy got rid of Commies in the USA in the 1950’s but perhaps they have made a comeback and are now embedded in your Government. Tough luck for you!
    Perhaps it’s the beginning of the end for democracy and freedom of speech in the USA?
    Is it worth fighting for? Maybe. Maybe not. Are you Brave? Are you Free? Do you want to stay that way? It’s up to you. Your future is in your hands.

  32. Friends:

    Several people have asserted in this thread that promotion of the AGW-scare is motivated by opposition to ‘third word development’ or to ‘capitalism’. There are many clear motivations for promotion of the scare but I see no evidence that those oppositions are significant reasons for the promotion.

    Decades of attempt to assuage the scare have convinced me that what some see as opposition to ‘third word development’ or to ‘capitalism’ are – in reality – opposition to industrialisation. The opponents are a modern form of Luddites and include people with a distorted and romantic view of ‘natural’ existence in the days when slaves fulfilled the functions now performed by machines.

    The people who hold these anti-industrial views may not be evil, but implementing their views has evil effects.

    Richard

  33. TimB says:
    June 12, 2014 at 9:27 pm
    Climate justice?

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

    In leftist Newspeak, “climate justice” means that affluent countries must atone for their immoral use of fossil fuels by having poor people in rich countries pay carbon taxes to rich dictators in poor countries so the rich dictators can further oppress the poor people thereby making them poorer…

    I know the logic seems a bit flawed, but that’s only because it is…

  34. John Of Cloverdale WA, Australia says:
    June 12, 2014 at 10:45 pm
    As an Australian, I would like to see that. The US actualy needs Australia more than Australia needs the US. Don’t let WW2 fool you. The americans ‘rescued Australia from the japanes for their own needs , not Australia’s needs. Our successive governments have been sucking up to the yanks ever since. Mind you, I do have many cool american friends but I can’t stand the ‘Americanisation’ of the world.

  35. I don’t know whether this was a paid post or not. I suspect it wasn’t. Clubs have rules, you toe their line. If you don’t want to then find another club.

    I wonder if GWPF are looking for a new associate. I heard they had a vacancy.

  36. @- Richard Courtney
    “Decades of attempt to assuage the scare have convinced me that what some see as opposition to ‘third word development’ or to ‘capitalism’ are – in reality – opposition to industrialisation. ”

    I think that it is even more specific than that.
    It is an opposition to industrialisation by increasing use of fossil fuels.

    First such a program is inherently impossible because there just are not enough fossil fuels for the whole population to enjoy using European levels of fossil fuel per capita, never mind US levels.
    Second industrialisation using fossil fuels risks making the changes to the atmospheric chemistry and physics even greater with increasingly uncertain outcomes in relation to climate, ocean acidification and sea level rise.

    I don’t think there are many who oppose increasing fossil fuel use who are really advocating a return to Arcadian slavery. Most would like to see the underdeveloped world progress through the use of energy source which do not do long term damage to the stability of the climate that has allowed us to develop civilisation over the last six millennia. Renewables, hydro, geothermal nuclear etc would all be acceptable alternatives for most.

    It’s an ‘ Anything but fossil fuel’ approach in opposition to the ‘ Nothing but fossil fuel’ approach.
    The middle gets excluded and both ‘sides’ are unhappy with places like China that are continuing to use coal to expand their power generation, but are placing constraints on its use and prioritising renewables, nuclear and reduced consumption through efficiencies.

  37. @richardscourtney, 1.31 am.

    Sorry, Richard, but I must disagree. John from OZ has the picture, as does Scarface. Lord Christopher Monckton has the whole picture, though, on this site, he has not fully expounded it, so far as I know.

    It is indeed a “Leftist = Communist” Agenda, working behind the “Green” Cloak of “sustainability”
    Their concern for the environment is minimal. Their agenda is depopulation & control.

    Read James Delingpole’s book “Watermellons”
    Look up The Georgia Guidestones : ” Keep World population under 500,000,000″, carved in marble, anonymously. & it’s not about sustainability, it’s about control.
    Reducing population from ~ 7 billion to ~ half a billion requires doing away with 13 of 14 of us.
    That’s you, your children & grandchildren.

    The lower echelons of the new “Green Religion” may sincerely believe they are saving the planet & the future of Humankind, but those at the top know the final agenda is a One World Totalitarian Govt.

    [Off-topic, no 911 claims. .mod]

    Go to http://www.informationclearinghouse.info for the costs, in both blood & money, for wars which are essentially depopulation & oil control wars.

    Look into the “banning” of DDT, & the millions of Third World Lives that has cost.

    Try this 7 min video : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVeA07d2F_I
    OR, put in : 5 Billion Human Beings to be Murdered – – New World…

    Lord Monckton on video: Go to Youtube, & put in the search box :
    Lord Monckton on United Nations Agenda 21
    Start with the 51 min video : Agenda 21s Globalist Death Plan for Humanity.

    It’s not just the climate our Govts are lying to us about, not by a looooong chalk.

    Mods, you may edit this any way you see fit.

    Regards,
    John Doran.

  38. Almost as if White American leftists are striving to keep the non White world down. That really is the most evil of all hypocrisy from the American left, telling the rest of the world (at least the darker skinned portions of) not to dare try to aspire to western living standards.

  39. jdseanjd says:
    June 13, 2014 at 3:31 am

    Sorry, I forgot the Paul Craig Roberts reference. Please go to his article :
    WTC Building 7 now a proven case of controlled demolition.
    JD.
    ——

    I think this is the wrong forum …. try Prison Planet, or Skeptical Science, they love conspiracies.

  40. richardscourtney says:
    June 13, 2014 at 1:31 am

    Friends:

    Several people have asserted in this thread that promotion of the AGW-scare is motivated by opposition to ‘third word development’ or to ‘capitalism’. There are many clear motivations for promotion of the scare but I see no evidence that those oppositions are significant reasons for the promotion.

    Decades of attempt to assuage the scare have convinced me that what some see as opposition to ‘third word development’ or to ‘capitalism’ are – in reality – opposition to industrialisation. The opponents are a modern form of Luddites and include people with a distorted and romantic view of ‘natural’ existence in the days when slaves fulfilled the functions now performed by machines.

    The people who hold these anti-industrial views may not be evil, but implementing their views has evil effects.

    Richard
    =============
    fair enough, in its way
    theres some of us however who dont like industrialisation for the other reason
    It leaves us without jobs, however boring or menial some folks might think they are..they were work and we got paid and had some pride in them and didnt end up in a dole line.
    grape harvesting
    used to employ 20 or 30 people for at least 8weeks in my old area. mechanised harvest one man one machine one week and none of us even got the tiny yearly cashflow ever again.
    one man earns heaps now..and his machinery is a tax deduction. win win for him
    many examples of the same, reason why rural jobs are scant and low paid even now.

    and Good On the fella for speaking truth..he could consider coming to Aus?
    we could do with some like him to support TA

  41. “Because you have rejected this message,
        relied on oppression
        and depended on deceit,
     this sin will become for you
        like a high wall, cracked and bulging,
        that collapses suddenly, in an instant.
     It will break in pieces like pottery,
        shattered so mercilessly
    that among its pieces not a fragment will be found
        for taking coals from a hearth
        or scooping water out of a cistern.”

    Isaiah 30, 12-14.

  42. ‘ r murphy says:
    June 12, 2014 at 9:45 pm

    J Ryan has raised a good point, would Rossiter still be advocating for IPS if they kept paying him? We are at a critical point in this saga and the world needs scientists to start speaking their conscience and stop worrying about their careers. When the truth is revealed their careers will be guaranteed.’

    Did you not read the article? He got thrown out precisely because he DID speak his conscience.

  43. “We are at a critical point in this saga and the world needs scientists to start speaking their conscience and stop worrying about their careers. ”

    So easy to play fast and loose with other people’s lives and careers.

  44. They call themselves the Institute for Policy Studies, and yet apparently they don’t have time for scientific data. That pretty well sums it up.
    Chris

  45. IPS does not fight poverty. They fight for grants to IPS to talk about poverty. Those promoting ‘climate justice’ are misguided at best, and frauds at worst.

  46. From Rossiter’s WSJ piece …

    In 2010 the left tried to block a World Bank loan for a new coal-fired plant in South Africa. Fortunately, the loan was approved (with the U.S. abstaining). The drive to provide electricity for the poor has been perhaps the greatest achievement of South Africa’s post-apartheid governments.

    Standing on the mountainside at night in Cape Town, overlooking the “Coloured” township of Mitchell’s Plain and the African township of Khayelitsha, you can now see a twinkling blanket of bulbs. How terrible to think that so many people in the West would rather block such success stories in the name of unproved science.

    http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303380004579521791400395288

  47. No need to worry. the president and I are working on classifying thinking as a dangerous pollutant and imposing huge fines on people who endanger humanity by doing it.

  48. @Richard S Courtney 1:31am.

    Issac Asimov nailed this one. Dining next to a matriarch he showed surprise when she said that life was so much better when servants were available and affordable.
    “But madam we would have hated it!”
    “Why?”
    “Because we would be the servants!”

  49. The Institute for Policy Studies doesn’t want Africa to have cheap and plentiful energy. I wonder if they have an opinion about fixing the lights and energy infrastructure in Detroit …

    Inadequate street lighting has been a serious safety issue in Detroit for decades. It won’t be for much longer. We are serving as expert advisers to the new Detroit Public Lighting Authority. The authority is moving aggressively to light our city, adding 500 new lights per week — 20,000 by year-end. Most neighborhoods will have new lights this year, and by the end of 2015 all of Detroit will have streetlights befitting a major city.

    Our crews are scurrying to construct the electric and gas infrastructure necessary to support the new Red Wings arena and the events center district that will surround it. Major investments by the Ilitch family in this area promise to catalyze a wave of exciting new development.

    http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20140530/OPINION01/305300004

    Red Wings arena where energy is used to cover the rink with ice and heat the building at the same time. Shocking!

  50. “Caleb, I don’t have time for this” = “I cannot defend my case, so instead I’ll shut down the debate.”

  51. richardscourtney says:
    June 13, 2014 at 1:31 am
    ////////////////////

    I consider that youn are being too kind, and possibly niaive.

    I would suggest that if one can reasonably foresee that the effects of one’s actions is evil, even if one does not personally intend the evil effects, then one is evil since one obviously has a calous disregard for the welbeing of others, not caring that evil effects will ensue from one’s actions

    A kind person would dissist from a course of action, in circumstances that it is reasonably foreseeable that hurt to others will ensue.

    I suspect that they are well aware that the effects of their action is evil, but they feel that it is for the greater good, since without that action they envisage even greater harm will be done, and they are the ones who know best, and accordingly they should dictate what is done, or not done. They are the architypical beneficial dictator.

  52. It’s not about the science, it was never about the science. Nonetheless, science is a powerful sword and a steady shield.

  53. @John from Oz: The United States is not a democracy. It is a federal republic. You can’t fight to maintain something unless you already have it. The freedom of speech battle is already lost. Ask Mr. Cathy of Chik Fil A, former Miss America contestant Carrie Prejean, Paula Dean or Donald Sterling. In Mr. Cathy and Miss Prejean’s cases, they were asked if they supported gay marriage. For expressing their opinions they became targets of zealots who thought nothing of destroying their lives and in Mr. Cathy’s case, destroying his business. Neither one had ever campaigned against or actively opposed gay marriage. Paula Dean had made a racist comment 30 years ago, that was enough. As for Sterling, he was behaving irrationally for months. what kind of comments would you expect to hear from an irrational drunk?
    Say just one thing that offends the wrong person and watch an angry mob relentlessly pursue your downfall.
    I am not defending what any of these people did. I’m calling into question the way people responded to them. You can spend the rest of your life seeking to destroy the millions of people who disagree with you or you can call them ——-s and move on.

  54. @- richard verney
    “A kind person would dissist from a course of action, in circumstances that it is reasonably foreseeable that hurt to others will ensue.”

    Unfortunately if a course of action is profitable and legal then even kind people will reject the claims that there is foreseeable harm and continue. The history of hard rock mining confirms that.

    http://www.centerwest.org/publications/pdf/mines.pdf

  55. Once again, Follow The Money.

    The big bucks are on the alarmist side and you lose yours if you don’t toe the line, as exampled here.

    But why? Because most research about anything is paid for by grants, mostly government grants. And it is easier to get research grants, government or private, if you’re studying something dangerous, like climate change or cancer or heart disease. This Prof threatened everyone else’s gravy train.

    There is also the matter of huge money made in solar, wind and other alternative energy technologies. I am old enough to remember the 1973 oil crisis vividly. The Big Oil companies felt their futures threatened, and they invested heavily in alternative energy. This is why “Koch Brothers money” is such a joke among us and why a big oil company (Shell?) was one of the funding sources of the Climate Gaters.

    The “Big Oil Companies” stand to make larger profits from other energy sources than oil.

  56. ntesdorf says:
    June 12, 2014 at 9:28 pm
    We saw the same sort of activity in the Third Reich and in the former Soviet Union. The Warmistas are truly the inheritors of the Cloak of Fascism and Oppression of Thought.

    Oh please, what a preposterous analogy. This is a left wing think tank, not the government. Do you really think someone who worked for Heartland would hang onto his/her job if he gave an interview with the New York Times in which he said AGW was real and that the world needed to take immediate action on CO2 emissions? Or someone working for the US Chamber of Commerce in an interview stating that free trade was a bad idea? Or someone working for the Gates Foundation who said that vaccinations caused autism? Of course not, they’d be gone in a minute.

  57. richard verney:

    re your post at June 13, 2014 at 4:28 am.

    Please read my post you are answering again because it seems you do not recognise the great degree of agreement between us. My post at June 13, 2014 at 1:31 am is here and it says

    The people who hold these anti-industrial views may not be evil, but implementing their views has evil effects.

    That point is made by ozspeaksup in his post at June 13, 2014 at 3:44 am where he replies to me saying

    fair enough, in its way
    theres some of us however who dont like industrialisation for the other reason
    It leaves us without jobs, however boring or menial some folks might think they are..they were work and we got paid and had some pride in them and didnt end up in a dole line.
    grape harvesting
    used to employ 20 or 30 people for at least 8weeks in my old area. mechanised harvest one man one machine one week and none of us even got the tiny yearly cashflow ever again.
    one man earns heaps now..and his machinery is a tax deduction. win win for him
    many examples of the same, reason why rural jobs are scant and low paid even now.

    and Good On the fella for speaking truth..he could consider coming to Aus?
    we could do with some like him to support TA

    My attitude to that is stated by Ed Moran at June 13, 2014 at 4:16 am who here writes

    @Richard S Courtney 1:31am.

    Issac Asimov nailed this one. Dining next to a matriarch he showed surprise when she said that life was so much better when servants were available and affordable.
    “But madam we would have hated it!”
    “Why?”
    “Because we would be the servants!”

    Prof. Caleb Rossiter was sacked as an Associate Fellow of the IPS because he refused to be an obedient servant of the IPS.

    Richard

  58. The IPS didn’t hire a scientist to advance science, they hired him to advance ideology. The instant he became more of a liability than an asset, out the door he goes. This is “climate justice” in action.

  59. Sorry for the obvious bias in favour of posters called Richard but I greatly appreciate the debate here between Richard Courtney and Richard Verney. I agree with RC on the basic fact that few greens or progressives directly want to blight the lives of the very poor. The problem for most, as Thomas Sowell wrote two years ago, may be self-flattery:

    The theme that most seemed to rouse the enthusiasm of delegates to the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte was that we are all responsible for one another — and that Republicans don’t want to help the poor, the sick and the helpless.

    All of us should be on guard against beliefs that flatter ourselves. At the very least, we should check such beliefs against facts.

    Yet the notion that people who prefer economic decisions to be made by individuals in the market are not as compassionate as people who prefer those decisions to be made collectively by politicians is seldom even thought of as a belief that should be checked against facts.

    Nor is this notion confined to Democrats in America today. Belief in the superior compassion of the political left is a worldwide phenomenon that goes back at least as far as the 18th century. But in all that time, and in all those places, there has been little, if any, effort on the left to check this crucial assumption against facts.

    When an empirical study of the actual behavior of American conservatives and liberals was published in 2006, it turned out that conservatives donated a larger amount of money, and a higher percentage of their incomes (which were slightly lower than liberal incomes) to philanthropic activities.

    Conservatives also donated more of their time to philanthropic activities and donated far more blood than liberals. What is most remarkable about this study are not just its results. What is even more remarkable is how long it took before anyone even bothered to ask the questions. It was just assumed, for centuries, that the left was more compassionate.

    Ronald Reagan donated a higher percentage of his income to charitable activities than did either Franklin D. Roosevelt or Ted Kennedy. Being willing to donate the taxpayers’ money is not the same as being willing to put your own money where your mouth is.

    We should check such beliefs against facts. Respect to Caleb Rossiter for doing just that.

  60. Blacklisting leads to stoning as long as no one stands up to the progression of events and neglect.

  61. The Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) receives 75% of its funding from private / family foundations. They are funded to express a certain view, not necessarily to seek the truth. But I have to say having your fellowship “terminated” has an ironic ring to it. Good for him for speaking his truth.

  62. Jeepers, I never heard of the IPS. But while looking at some of the many articles on their website I saw this:

    “…Janet Redman, director of the Institute for Policy Studies’ climate policy program, also in Songdo, noted that, “195 countries came together to create the Green Climate Fund in order to help finance the transition in developing countries from dirty energy development to clean energy, climate-resilient economies.”
    Redman added, “Common sense says that financing any fossil fuels or harmful energy through the Green Climate Fund is totally inconsistent with what climate scientists say we need to do to avoid runaway climate change. This fund is so important precisely because it’s meant to support a paradigm shift to sustainable development.”…”

    I would suspect that Janet Redman grew up on “dirty energy” like so many others commenting on the IPS site. They would deny the people in developing countries the same privileges (“harmful energy”) they grew up with.

    In another article on this site, they don’t think the EPA has gone far enough:
    “EPA’s Carbon Rule Falls Short of Real Emissions Reduction…”
    The articles on this site read like the Huffington Post…
    They think they are doing good work.

  63. Not a surprising, really. The CAGW position is so fragile that mere words can cause huge damage.

  64. This story shows where the real money, outside of academia, lies, with respect to organizations like, IPS, Green Peace, Sierra Club etc… in funding climate alarmism.

  65. Evidently the politically correct definition of “diversity” does not allow for *intellectual* diversity.

  66. Richard Drake says:
    June 13, 2014 at 5:44 am
    ——

    Richard,
    I’m with you fellers . . .

  67. @- Richard Drake
    “When an empirical study of the actual behavior of American conservatives and liberals was published in 2006, it turned out that conservatives donated a larger amount of money, and a higher percentage of their incomes (which were slightly lower than liberal incomes) to philanthropic activities.”

    Do you have a link for the study that made this claim?

    I have a suspicion that it was the study that counted donations to their church as philanthropic despite the fact that most of that is used to pay administrative expenses of their church.

  68. Jim Ryan says:
    June 12, 2014 at 9:24 pm
    So, Rossiter is willing to call IPS corrupt only when they cut him off the payroll? Was it corrupt before that, did he notice the corruption and blow the whistle on it, or did he participate in the corruption as its employee?

    There is no injustice in cutting him off the payroll. He was paid to advocate a certain position, truth be damned, and he stopped doing his job.
    ++++++++++++
    You are completely unreasonable. You don’t know if he was paid. You don’t know why he was a fellow there. So many scenarios are possible. For instance, he may have believed in their charter until he started to realize their charter was flawed and openly spoke out about the flaws. You are flat wrong in your assertion. He was dismissed after he spoke out, not prior.

  69. IPS is a left wing organization. Caleb Rossiter was paid to push the company line. He failed. He got fired.

    I have no problem with that.

    If you are a salesman for Ford and you tell people a Volvo is better, then you should either learn to lie or go work for Volvo.

  70. ‘My wife-beating husband is complaining that I told the papers about his wife beating’.

    The answer is pretty simple: don’t tell the papers about it, leave your husband. Find a better one. Be happy.

  71. Another day, another victim of discrimination and oppression with no repercussions. This behavior perpetuates itself unchallenged.

  72. izen:

    Do you have a link for the study that made this claim?

    Nope, secondary source only. You’d need to ask Tom Sowell. I have no idea how donations to churches were treated, or whether the symptoms cleared up when they were. :)

  73. Institute for Pre-Determined Policy Conclusions would be truthful. Their current title is misleading.

  74. Advocating for an officially designated energy policy for the US designed to at least sound moderate and for economic opportunity of underdeveloped regions sounds pretty moderate. You might want to reflect on whether you are an extremist if you can’t be associated with someone who thinks like that.

  75. Mary Brown says:
    June 13, 2014 at 7:02 am
    IPS is a left wing organization. Caleb Rossiter was paid to push the company line. He failed. He got fired.

    I have no problem with that.

    If you are a salesman for Ford and you tell people a Volvo is better, then you should either learn to lie or go work for Volvo.
    ++++++++++
    The bigger point here is that in the advancement of an ideology, people should be fired for seeking truth in. Focusing on this alone is not incorrect, however, it’s shallow.

    And your analogy is terrible. And that he should learn to lie is a sad recommendation. He was not batting for the other team, he was seeking truth. He may have believed in other charters within the organization.

  76. Steve from Rockwood says:
    June 13, 2014 at 6:09 am

    The Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) receives 75% of its funding from private / family foundations. They are funded to express a certain view, not necessarily to seek the truth.

    IPS couldn’t allow any of those donors to become disaffected because of Rossiter’s column. It had to get rid of him to forestall any disaffection and keep the gravy flowing.

  77. Kudos to Richard Courtney for at least trying to understand the other side, and making at least a little progress. The direct path from cheap energy to compassion for the poor that is so obvious to the right appears quite tortuous to the left. The left believes that what the poor need is to be able to take home more than the 15-20% of the wealth they generate that capitalism currently provides them. That social justice thing again that causes the right to reflexively fly into a rage. The goal of the left is to push the global economy towards sustainability sooner rather than later, and that is seen as a moral imperative. You will perhaps notice, if you have the faculties to do so, that this connection between sustainability and morality must be first twisted into something unrecognizable to the left before it can be assailed. Now ask yourself, why do you need to do that? What does that say about you?

  78. I suspect this paragraph in his WSJ article was the straw that broke the camels back:

    The left wants to stop industrialization–even if the hypothesis of catastrophic, man-made global warming is false. John Feffer, my colleague at the Institute for Policy Studies, wrote in the Dec. 8, 2009, Huffington Post that “even if the mercury weren’t rising” we should bring “the developing world into the postindustrial age in a sustainable manner.” He sees the “climate crisis [as] precisely the giant lever with which we can, following Archimedes, move the world in a greener, more equitable direction.”

  79. {All bold emphasis mine – JW}

    The concluding paragraphs of Dr. Rossiter’s full WSJ OpEd (May 5, 2014, Wall Street Journal Editorial Page),

    “. . .

    In 2010 the left tried to block a World Bank loan for a new coal-fired plant in South Africa. Fortunately, the loan was approved (with the U.S. abstaining). The drive to provide electricity for the poor has been perhaps the greatest achievement of South Africa’s post-apartheid governments.

    Standing on the mountainside at night in Cape Town, overlooking the “Coloured” township of Mitchell’s Plain and the African township of Khayelitsha, you can now see a twinkling blanket of bulbs. How terrible to think that so many people in the West would rather block such success stories in the name of unproved science.”

    – – – – – – – –

    Rossiter’s use of left terminology throughout his WSJ OpEd leaves us with the question he illogically was begging. That question is, left as opposed to what? He seems to illogically presume in the WSJ OpEd that the left is the whole context for all solutions. He implies that even when the left is in error, the correction of the error should be a ‘left’ solution.

    Intellectual myopia.

    John

  80. First such a program is inherently impossible because there just are not enough fossil fuels for the whole population to enjoy using European levels of fossil fuel per capita, never mind US levels
    ===========
    forget the second point. the first point explains the true fear behind AGW. Competition for resources. Africa must be prevented from industrialization with fossil fuels, else there will not be enough to maintain our lifestyle. Having got theirs, the rich want to protect themselves from the poor.

    the reality however is much different. Coal is found just about everywhere if you look for it. there is no danger in running out of coal in the foreseeable future, unless it is artificially constrained by economic and political means. the most obvious route is for the World Bank to deny loans for coal powered electrification.

    The first step is the announced US energy policy restricting CO2 emissions for power plants. The problem is that the US invariably tries to export its laws and regulations to the world, via its dominant position on international organizations. If it is illegal in the US, then the US acts as though it should be illegal everywhere. If it is legal in the US, then the US acts as though it should be legal everywhere. There is very much a “we know better than you” approach in US foreign policy, which can be very harmful in countries where “one size does not fit all”.

  81. ‘My wife-beating husband is complaining that I told the papers about his wife beating’.

    Don’t complain about his wife beating. Leave him. Find a better husband. Be happy.

  82. It isn’t plausible that for all those years Rossiter didn’t know that the IPS preferred position advocacy to genuine inquiry.

    Nick, thanks for pointing out that he may not have been paid.

  83. Haven’t read all the comments, so someone may have said this already, but IPS is a venerable leftist think tank in DC dedicated to spreading Marxist propaganda around the world. It’s hardly surprising and entirely justifiable given their mission that they would eject anyone who doesn’t toe the party line.

  84. richardscourtney says:
    June 13, 2014 at 1:31 am
    Friends:

    ……..”Decades of attempt to assuage the scare have convinced me that what some see as opposition to ‘third word development’ or to ‘capitalism’ are – in reality – opposition to industrialisation. The opponents are a modern form of Luddites and include people with a distorted and romantic view of ‘natural’ existence in the days when slaves fulfilled the functions now performed by machines.

    The people who hold these anti-industrial views may not be evil, but implementing their views has evil effects.”

    Perhaps not evil but most certainly ignorant. The quality and length of life has improved tremendously from those “natural existence days” when an impacted wisdom tooth or other minor infection could kill you. And certainly hypocritical unless these folks refrain from use of modern medicine, automobiles, private jets, etc. Perhaps there lies the evil, in their hypocracy. Modern day Scribes, Pharisees and money changers to be driven from the Temple.

  85. I understand why Rossiter would be canned for going against his organization. However, the name of the organization is now seen to belie its purpose. Institute for Policy Studies. The studies are being done to see how they can shape situations and events to fit a pre-conceived set of policies. They don’t go for the analyses that may show the policies are founded in wrong science. I’m sure Rossiter knew what he was doing and this was his way to resign.

  86. Climate justice = Communism
    Nice to see the Reds er.. the Greens coming out of the closet.

  87. @- Richard Drake re Thomas Sowell reference: Arthur C Brooks, ‘Who Really Cares’

  88. Ed Chombeau says:

    June 13, 2014 at 6:36 am

    When in the “Vatican of Climate”; you better act like a Catholic—my analogy.
    ============
    Nicely said.
    Gave me a chuckle.

  89. Equally important, we should be making sure citizens are equipped with cheap energy sufficient for cold weather in the mid-latitudes, in addition to such energy for industrialization purposes in 3rd world countries. One thing about cold, it kills the rich and the poor alike. Global warming proponents will rue the day they smugly directed 3rd world countries to do without cheap efficient (high btu source) energy. Karma’s a bitch. But she’s mother nature’s bitch.

    In the middle of a hard drought, there is a hard freeze in Oregon tonight!!!!!

    http://forecast.weather.gov/wwamap/wwatxtget.php?cwa=wrh&wwa=freeze warning

  90. From Patrick Maher on June 13, 2014 at 4:37 am:

    Paula Dean had made a racist comment 30 years ago, that was enough. As for Sterling, he was behaving irrationally for months. what kind of comments would you expect to hear from an irrational drunk?

    Paula Dean didn’t make a racist comment, she used a term that was common back then without animus. I just saw Guess Who’s Coming To Dinner? for the first time a year ago, by chance on TV. There was a very strong anti-racism message, yet “negroes” was commonly used. No one thought anything about it, I’ve seen it on other old shows.

    I expect that movie will hit the “BANNED for Excessive Racism” list where it can join Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer, unless modern CGI can dub in an “appropriate” replacement.

    As for Sterling, as he was diagnosed with early Alzheimer disease that means the NBA has harshly penalized him for being mentally ill and disabled, he wasn’t responsible. Beyond basing their judgment on an illegal recording that would be inadmissible in court, they beat up an disabled elderly man with ongoing brain damage.

  91. Caleb,

    If you were associated with the Institute for Policy Studies for 23 years, you probably would have become aware, at some point, of their extremely radical, anti-American, Politically Correct Progressive attacks on Normal-America and capitalism.

    Lots of information available:

    http://www.conservapedia.com/Institute_for_Policy_Studies

    The IPS’s own website boasts: “As Washington’s first progressive multi-issue think tank, the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) has served as a policy and research resource for visionary social justice movements for over four decades — from the anti-war and civil rights movements in the 1960s to the peace and global justice movements of the last decade. Some of the greatest progressive minds of the 20th and 21st centuries have found a home at IPS…”

    When you’re affiliated with an organization like that for 23 years, you shouldn’t be surprised at their belief system, or their PC-Prog actions.

    Kent Clizbe
    http://www.kentclizbe.com

  92. From Dr. Rossiter’s full WSJ OpEd (May 5, 2014, Wall Street Journal Editorial Page):

    “. . .

    … They [environmental groups] say their goal is to get America and Europe to look from space like Africa: dark, because of minimal energy use.

    They [the Africans Rossiter knows] want Africa at night to look like the developed world, with lights in every little village and with healthy people, living longer lives, sitting by those lights. Real years added to real lives should trump the minimal impact that African carbon emissions could have on a theoretical catastrophe.

    . . .

    The left wants to stop industrialization–even if the hypothesis of catastrophic, man-made global warming is false.

    . . .”

    – – – – – – – –

    While I find Rossiter’s political context / terminology illogical and question begging, I think he does address a most important ethical issue.

    It is profoundly immoral to act (for whatever reason) to prevent a people’s voluntary efforts to achieve the life promoting and wealth enhancing benefits of using freely traded capital on widespread technology (aka: market capitalized full industrialization).

    I sincerely ask, is this profoundly immoral position found most predominately in what Rossiter refers to as the left? If so then what is specifically the phenomena called the ‘left’ using basic language? That is not a rhetorical question, clarity on this is important to expose immorality using basic language.

    John

  93. John,

    Great observation and question.

    Terminology is the tool that we can use to define and understand our opponents and their belief system.

    Calling them “the Left” does not provide clarity. “The Left” is a relative term–as opposed to “the Right.”

    Extremists who advocate for extreme measures to destroy capitalist economies, using the excuse of Man-caused Global Warming, are not “the left.” In order to understand them, the key is to categorize their actions and the effects of their actions. In short, the fanatics are anti-capitalists. They are not “for” anything–their rhetoric does not actually advocate for anything–they are only “against” capitalist economic activity.

    So, the terminology question requires that we identify the basis of these extremist anti-capitalists’ belief system. I just happen to have researched this issue–my research question was: Where did Political Correctness come from?

    Analysis of the spectrum of Politically Correct Progressive activists’ messages led to a summary of PC. They believe that: “America is a racist, sexist, homophobic, foreigner-hating, imperialist, capitalist hell-hole. And it must be changed.”

    Those two sentences contain the essence of every PC-Progressive message.

    So, the terminology that best captures our opponents’ beliefs is: Politically Correct Progressives (PC-Progs). This encompasses the AGW cult, the Occupy Wall St rabble, and every other anti-Normal movement. Hope that helps.

    This short video provides more details: http://willingaccomplices.com/willing_accomplices/videos

  94. Reblogged this on Public Secrets and commented:
    This reminds me of the savaging of Dr. Lennart Bengtsson in Europe, because he had committed the sin of working with reasonable climate-change skeptics. There’s a new Lysenkoism rising, and it’s threatening the integrity of science, itself.

  95. Mario Lento says:
    June 13, 2014 at 6:47 am
    “… So many scenarios are possible. For instance, he may have believed in their charter until he started to realize their charter was flawed and openly spoke out about the flaws. …”
    _______________________
    Mario,
    You have touched on something very important. We all make mistakes and learn and then move on.

  96. On the one hand, I don’t like to see intolerance for other viewpoints and trying to limit debate. On the other, I see their point if he disagreed with the foundation on too many issues, why would they continue to support him with a fellowship? I assume this had a small stipend with it, but maybe not. If you read (IIRC) what he wrote, it seems he named one of the other fellows at the foundation by name, quoted him, disagreed with him publicly in the WSJ and in the same few sentences, used the term “leftists”. So this may also have to do with his ability to work with other people there effectively.

  97. Prof. Caleb Rossiter,

    Hold your head up and walk proud, Citizen!
    By your honesty, you are confirmed as a man of integrity and self respect!

    This is a choice we all face:
    Tell the truth and live with the consequences, or
    Lie to keep a job, friends, money and/or status.

    Self respect drives us to the first choice.
    Self esteem may lead us to the latter choice.
    The two terms are not synonymous.
    Mac

  98. A little looking into Caleb Rossiter’s background reveals why he has kept his IPS affiliation. He is against American imperialism.

    http://www.calebrossiter.com/

    But he also seems to be consistent in his efforts against AGW alarmism. His article in 2010:

    Climate Catastrophe: Convenient Fibs and Dangerous Prescriptions

    http://calebrossiter.com/Climate%202010.html

    “The left’s skepticism seems to have deserted it on climate change. Far from questioning authority, leftists are among the leaders in proclaiming climate catastrophe, based on a reverential reference to the IPCC and “the scientists” who spin off far more alarming scenarios. They have abandoned their stock in trade, the diligent digging into research claims on, say, military strategy in Afghanistan or export-led growth in Africa, to uncover self-serving misrepresentations and unlikely simplifications. Why is this the case? Why are the leftists happily hopping into bed with Al Gore, a Dixie whom they have fought on foreign and military policy from the MX missile to aid to the Salvadoran army to landmines? Why do they ostracize as firmly as the Democratic Party any contrary conclusions, or even questions that might lead to them?

    “The answer is that for the left global warming is the perfect storm, a rare chance to find common cause with the American mainstream on policies that will achieve long-sought goals. The consensus about the dangers of climate change is a welcome license to dismember the carbon-driven capitalism that many on the left see as the source of numerous political and social ills, from poverty to dictatorship in developing countries, and from the income gap to ostentatious consumption in the developed world. In addition, the leftist wing of the “green” movement that began in the 1970’s in Europe and the United States has always had an apocalyptic streak, a fear that population, consumption, and development are unsustainable and tending toward disaster. As John Feffer of the Institute for Policy Studies has written: “Cutting back on consumption, reducing fossil-fuel use, bringing the developing world into the post-industrial age in a sustainable manner: Even if the mercury weren’t rising, these are critical goals. The climate crisis is precisely the giant lever with which we can, following Archimedes, move the world in a greener, more equitable direction.” (4)”

  99. Reblogged this on Catholic Glasses and commented:
    Dang! I thought we still had “Free Speech.” Truth telling isn’t the Obama Administration’s forte. Guess he has “changed” the USA into his image and likeness, and it’s besmirched with one Mortal Sin after another. I will pray for this Professor. He was right. Global Warming is not proven science. It’s now called Climate Change. Scientists in the know, have called it “Geoengineering.” Weather weapons.

  100. “The Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) terminated my 23-year relationship with them…because my analysis and theirs ‘diverge.’”
    Yet when John Holdren’s scientific evidence and data quality is questioned it was just his “personal opinion”.

    At least Professor Rossiter has the satisfaction of knowing his fellowship was terminated for pointing out the emperor has no clothes.

  101. They should change the name from IPS to IPC: The Institute for Policy Conformity.

    The autocratic left loves diversity except when it’s intellectual or ideological.

  102. Methinks the good professor (no irony there) decided it was time to go, and further decided to do it with a bang rather than a whimper. Good on ‘im! For his integrity, I hereby dub him “the antiGleick”.

  103. WTF is climate justice? C’mon, seriously?

    How do you take the climate to court?

  104. Kent Clizbe says:
    June 13, 2014 at 12:07 pm
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Good comment. The professor should be looked on as a rational man and not berated as a “changeling” for as you pointed out, he hasn’t changed at all and has had the fortitude to say in public what some, even here, will only say privately or anonymously. Good for him. (And not meant as a snark, as if I were still working in my old company, I would probably have to use a pseudonym also as “Green” is good for some sorts of “sales” and it is what many clients want as they want to “sell” what they sell to the public.) Often we find ourselves between a rock and a hard place. I think some of the scientists who have stepped out lately, probably had a lot of sleepiness nights before they did so and we should laud them and their courage.

  105. One wonders, does Caleb Rossiter think/ know that there are others within the Institute who may do likewise. Or at least that there may be some talk of unease with the Party line. It’s unlikely he was the only one there, unhappy to promote the fraud. It certainly does prove that there are plenty of scientists trapped with the dilemma, to speak out and loose their livelihood, or keep taking the cash.

    Eamon.

  106. There are now half-a-dozen articles at Climate Depot. This seems to be the latest, the first 6 paragraphs are good:

    Climate Statistics Prof. Dr. Caleb Rossiter: ‘My blood simply boils too hot when I read the blather, daily, about climate catastrophe. It is so well-meaning, and so misguided’ – ‘Obama has long been delusional on this issue’ http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/06/13/climate-statistics-prof-dr-caleb-rossiter-my-blood-simply-boils-too-hot-when-i-read-the-blather-daily-about-climate-catastrophe-it-is-so-well-meaning-and-so-misguided-obama-has/

  107. Reblogged this on The GOLDEN RULE and commented:
    “IPS email of ‘termination’ to Rossiter: ‘We would like to inform you that we are terminating your position as an Associate Fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies…Unfortunately, we now feel that your views on key issues, including climate science, climate justice, and many aspects of U.S. policy to Africa, diverge so significantly from ours’”

  108. It just occurred to me that this group of so called ‘scientists’ whole goal is pure political horse crap.. it has never been about science.. and now they are admonishing a scientist for being one and not following the approved script.. (aka: the climate gospel)

    The Stupidity….. IT BURNS!

  109. more soylent green! says:
    June 13, 2014 at 3:55 pm

    WTF is climate justice? C’mon, seriously?

    ____________________________________________

    Climate justice is where your shoved back into a cave and denied fire while all the monies, property and food you had are redistributed to others.. who use coal and gas…. in third world country like you are now becoming.

    Commie Red is the new Blue…

  110. Alan Robertson says:
    June 13, 2014 at 11:35 am
    Mario Lento says:
    June 13, 2014 at 6:47 am
    “… So many scenarios are possible. For instance, he may have believed in their charter until he started to realize their charter was flawed and openly spoke out about the flaws. …”
    _______________________
    Mario,
    You have touched on something very important. We all make mistakes and learn and then move on.
    +++++++++
    Thanks Alan. I won’t condemn people who seek truth as they see it. The rush to judgement is no way to make strides towards the truth and welcome it.

  111. “Be not intimidated…nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your liberties by any pretense of politeness, delicacy, or decency.
    These, as they are often used, are but three different names for hypocrisy, chicanery and cowardice.”
    ― John Adams

  112. Skiphil says: “The fact that they are sooooo intolerant of any critical questions from within their ranks shows that they are tightly blinkered left-wing loons” . . . this kind of behaviour isn’t a function of political position. . . it’s found right across the ideological spectrum , . . If you speak out against the party/company line in most businesses/organisations you are likely to be disciplined or sacked, especially in the Uk or US . . Power doesn’t like criticism no matter how appropriate or important. . . and that’s probably a magnified version of a very common situation: most of us don’t like dissent from our point of view . It’s the human ego at work . . pity we can’t learn to turn it off for the sake of the pursuit of knowledge and understanding. . . . We need dissent/disagreement/criticism, all of us, and should be grateful for it, to keep us going in the right direction because the truth is that we know a lot less than we think we do . .

  113. izen says:
    June 13, 2014 at 6:39 am
    @- Richard Drake
    “When an empirical study of the actual behavior of American conservatives and liberals was published in 2006, it turned out that conservatives donated a larger amount of money, and a higher percentage of their incomes (which were slightly lower than liberal incomes) to philanthropic activities.”

    Do you have a link for the study that made this claim?

    I have a suspicion that it was the study that counted donations to their church as philanthropic despite the fact that most of that is used to pay administrative expenses of their church.

    Good point. (Finally.)

  114. IPS is a long-time lover of left-wing extremism.

    Some IPS trustees: Harry Belafonte check, Barbara Ehrenreich check, Jodie Evans (Founder of Codepink) check, and Katrina vanden Heuvel, Editor of Nation check.

    This professor was in bed with the worst the American Left has to offer.

    More on IPS history: http://www.ips-dc.org/about/history

  115. I suggest we establish a Lysenko Award to give to institutions like IPS when they demonstrate that it really is all about the politics and not the science.

    This could have much broader application than the climate controversy; I would expect PETA’s front groups to win them frequently too.

  116. rogerknights: After that Geoff Shorten kindly informed me that Thomas Sowell, who I was quoting, was referring to the book by Arthur C Brooks, ‘Who Really Cares’. Whatever the strengths or weaknesses of that particular work Sowell’s wider point surely stands:

    What is most remarkable about this study are not just its results. What is even more remarkable is how long it took before anyone even bothered to ask the questions. It was just assumed, for centuries, that the left was more compassionate.

    We waxed lyrical on the subject again this January:

    This asymmetry in responses to people with different opinions has been too persistent, for too many years, to be just a matter of individual personality differences.

    Although Charles Murray has been a major critic of the welfare state and of the assumptions behind it, he recalled that before writing his landmark book, “Losing Ground,” he had been “working for years with people who ran social programs at street level, and knew the overwhelming majority of them to be good people trying hard to help.”

    Can you think of anyone on the left who has described Charles Murray as “a good person trying hard to help”? He has been repeatedly denounced as virtually the devil incarnate — far more often than anyone has tried seriously to refute his facts.

    Such treatment is not reserved solely for Murray. Liberal writer Andrew Hacker spoke more sweepingly when he said, “conservatives don’t really care whether black Americans are happy or unhappy.”

    Even in the midst of an election campaign against the British Labour Party, when Winston Churchill said that there would be dire consequences if his opponents won, he said that this was because “they do not see where their theories are leading them.”

    But, in an earlier campaign, Churchill’s opponent said that he looked upon Churchill “as such a personal force for evil that I would take up the fight against him with a whole heart.”

    Examples of this asymmetry between those on opposite sides of the ideological divide could be multiplied almost without limit. It is not solely a matter of individual personality differences.

    The vision of the left is not just a vision of the world. For many, it is also a vision of themselves — a very flattering vision of people trying to save the planet, rescue the exploited, create “social justice” and otherwise be on the side of the angels. This is an exalting vision that few are ready to give up, or to risk on a roll of the dice, which is what submitting it to the test of factual evidence amounts to. Maybe that is why there are so many fact-free arguments on the left, whether on gun control, minimum wages, or innumerable other issues — and why they react so viscerally to those who challenge their vision.

    The Churchill-Attlee example I found especially striking as the latter is my old school’s most notable alumnus and was generally a good man – certainly in the view of Churchill’s official biographer, Sir Martin Gilbert, based on some remarks he made to me after a brilliant talk he gave in Hampstead on ‘Churchill in London’. Such generalisation as Sowell makes by no means applies to every leftist, of course, but it’s a trend that I for one think is as plain as day. And with climate the assumed moral superiority is combined once again with particularly lethal consequences.

    Compassionate Climate Concern might get round the sterile left-right thing, giving a label for scepticism that might provoke useful debate.

  117. LOL! Liberals. No room for differing opinions. This guy should sue the bejesus out of the school. I’d say to this professor though…if you lay down with dogs…you get up with fleas…

  118. “Professor’s fellowship ‘terminated’ after WSJ OpEd declaring ‘the left wants to stop industrialization—even if the hypothesis of catastrophic, man-made global warming is false’.”

    How is that controversial? It is a statement of fact, i.e. the Guardian Liberty Voice, from May 31st, ”
    If Global Warming Is False People Should Still Change”;

    http://guardianlv.com/2014/05/if-global-warming-is-false-people-should-still-change/#QEG8xYM1u1brEHV7.99

    “Whether or not global warming is indeed real is irrelevant. Humans will often deny the changes that scientist report so they may go about life as they know it with no qualms. However, this attitude is detrimental. More people need to understand that the earth is in trouble. Man-made pollution and unsustainable living practices, including supporting damaging businesses such as the palm oil industry, must be curbed in order to help the earth balance itself once again. People may deny science and insist that global warming is false, but they still must change for the sake of helping the earth battle and win its war against industrialization.”

  119. Jim Ryan description above best characterizes this situation for Rossiter. He stopped doing the job they paid him for, which was to progressive advocate policy agendas irregardless of the truth. The element missing here is how the Progressives view their actions versus their words. More clearly, Progressives are content with lies, distortions, half-truths meant to deceive, and corruption if it/they (the deceptions) serve a bigger purpose, a means-to-an-end justification.

    We see it in so much of what has come out of Obama is lies to further an end. ACA healthcare lies to sell a takeover of US healthcare system. The National Climate Assessment bag of lies to scare people into accepting carbon taxes, and of course a bigger objective of de-industrialization. Of course with de-industrialization, joblessness and social unrest will follow. Thus the push by the left in the USA to cutail 1st and 2nd Amendment rights. Also more government welfare wil be necessary to forcibly redistribute wealth, thus more taxes too, as in carbon taxes. A Living Constitutional interpretation is needed to expand government reach into areas reserved to the people or the states.

  120. @evanmjones – interesting link to Rossitor’s bail on “climate debate” It reads as though he never heard of WUWT, or ever visited here, particularly in his rejection of processing data due to politics, ideology and spin. His exposition is tantamount to sticking his fingers in his ears and quoting the SoCal hymn, “lalalalalaalalala”. Better he cross the aisle as a self-described skeptic and sit in the WUWT pews. Now, of course, I guess he can.
    _______________

    Bysebye, Never trust a hyphenated-justice. Hyphenated-justice is only crony-speak for “agenda” Justice can’t have an adjectival qualifier – its a dichotomous concept – there is either justice or there is not. Partial, grey, limited, or qualified is NOT justice, only a pretense of it.

  121. This is how ruling fascists typically imposed party discipline in the 20s and 30s. Of course, they didn’t last long either.

    If fascist scientists like Mann and policy makers like Gina McCarthy (interesting name, that) think they can thrive in a free society with these kinds of tactics, they are delusional.

  122. The outrage here is bizarre. Caleb Rossiter isn’t a “professor,” he’s an “adjunct fellow.” The IPS isn’t an accredited university, it’s a think tank with its own stated positions.
    Caleb Rossiter isn’t a climate scientist, he’s a politician and policy wonk.

    If an associate of the Heritage Foundation publicly called for the nationalization of all banks, I’d expect that guy to be dismissed pronto in the same way.

    This is what organizations do — terminate relationships with associates who are not supporting the mission.

  123. Peter Schwartz says:

    He wasn’t terminated, he was excommunicated.

    True dat.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Izen says:

    It is an opposition to industrialisation by increasing use of fossil fuels. First such a program is inherently impossible because there just are not enough fossil fuels for the whole population to enjoy using European levels of fossil fuel per capita, never mind US levels.

    Flat wrong. The price may rise, but there are plenty of fossil fuels available. Search “Bakken”.

    And:

    …industrialisation using fossil fuels risks making the changes to the atmospheric chemistry and physics even greater with increasingly uncertain outcomes in relation to climate, ocean acidification and sea level rise.

    Pure unfounded assertion. There is no evidence whatever that is true. In fact, every alarmist prediction has turned out to be totally wrong; no exceptions. Why should anyone listen to them any more?

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

    Mary Brown says:

    IPS is a left wing organization. Caleb Rossiter was paid to push the company line. He failed. He got fired. I have no problem with that.

    But you do have a problem with someone speaking the truth.

    Here is Rossiter’s climate blog. Why don’t you pick out something — anything — that you disagree with. We can discuss it here. I have no problem with that.

  124. Read the Siena Group’s Club of Rome report, entitled THE LIMITS TO GROWTH, published in 1971/1972. In that report, “they” talk about using “global warming” as a meme to get humanity to blame itself, for what are actually natural, cyclical changes in weather patterns, and to get humanity to blame itself, for potential (future) natural catastrophes, like hurricanes, tornados, tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, etc. The reason they want humanity to blame itself, is because “they” don’t intend to change anything about the way “they” run their corporations, which pump tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, annually. Humanity is being “pumped, and dumped”, by the .001/.01/1%. “They” plan these things DECADES in advance. While this Club of Rome report was being distributed, Scientists in the 1970′s were warning of a “coming Ice Age”. Look, “they” couldn’t even reach an agreement back in the 1970′s, so why would it be any different today. Keep in mind, that just because people are in agreement about something doesn’t make it so. 99% of people could be told by the government, and their media, that UP is really DOWN, and that DOWN is really UP. But, that doesn’t make it so. Look into CLIMATEGATE. It’s not science, this “global warming” push – it’s POLITICS. Pure poly-tricks. It’s all part of the Cini Foundation, the Siena Group, the Club of Rome, the International Central Bankers, and their push for global governance, with themselves, the .001/.01/1% ruling over the 99.999% debt slaves on their global plantation.

  125. I’d like to correct and expand upon my comment.
    Prof. Rossiter certainly IS a professor — adjunct professor at American University, not at IPS.
    IPS hasn’t specified why Rossiter was terminated. Reading his op-ed at WSJ, it likely was NOT for expressing skepticism of climate change.
    Rossiter ridiculed many people and interests in the piece: a peer at IPS, students at AU, environmentalists in general, and thus, multiple donor classes of IPS.
    His argument, that development in Africa should not be compromised on the basis of climate concerns, could have been forcefully made without antagonizing these groups.
    He seems to have used WSJ to vent his spleen in multiple directions at once. I’d have terminated him, too.

  126. What’s striking is not that the Institute for Policy Studies canned Rossiter, but that Rossiter came out in public against IPS’s preferred view of things.

  127. Bill Gates must be in a similar position. He is trying to help Africa and Africans with his charity but if he is on the CAGW side then he can’t help in any effective way. Keeping people alive longer while they are in poverty is hardly a win. There are so many ways he is not ‘allowed’ to help.

    If Bill Gates follows in Rossiter’s footsteps then he will really be able to make a difference.

    I think he can be ‘turned’ otherwise all his good intentions will be continual failure. {Though imagine the hatred if he put people above ideology!}

  128. ozspeaksup says:
    theres some of us however who dont like industrialisation for the other reason
    It leaves us without jobs, however boring or menial some folks might think they are..they were work and we got paid and had some pride in them and didnt end up in a dole line.
    grape harvesting
    used to employ 20 or 30 people for at least 8weeks in my old area. mechanised harvest one man one machine one week and none of us even got the tiny yearly cashflow ever again.
    one man earns heaps now..and his machinery is a tax deduction. win win for him
    many examples of the same, reason why rural jobs are scant and low paid even now.

    A complete misunderstanding of economics. You look at the short term impact instead of the long term. Pity the candlemakers when the light bulb came to be.

    Read “Economics in One Lesson” and see what someone with better understanding of the subject has to say.

Comments are closed.