My friend in Australia, Joanne Nova, has come up with an interesting essay on why it is so hard for many professional scientists to come out against climate consensus. In fact you might say in this case study it is un-bearable.
For the Full Report in PDF Form, please click here
The way some people get treated for expressing a different viewpoint rather reminds me of what Sethi says to Moses upon announcement of exile in the movie The Ten Commandments:
Let the name of Moses be stricken from every book and tablet. Stricken from every pylon and obelisk of Egypt. Let the name of Moses be unheard and unspoken, erased from the memory of man, for all time.
Nova writes: The price for speaking out against global warming is exile from your peers, even if you are at the top of your field. What follows is an example of a scientific group that not only stopped a leading researcher from attending a meeting, but then-without discussing the evidence-applauds the IPCC and recommends urgent policies to reduce greenhouse gases.
What has science been reduced to if bear biologists feel they can effectively issue ad hoc recommendations on worldwide energy use? How low have standards sunk if informed opinion is censored, while uninformed opinion is elevated to official policy?
If a leading researcher can’t speak his mind without punishment by exile, what chance would any up-and-coming researcher have? As Mitchell Taylor points out “It’s a good way to maintain consensus”.
Rereke Whakaaro (14:35:41) :
Stefan forgot to finish his post with [/offsnark]
I think you got his point.
Rereke Whakaaro,
Yes, I’m trying to understand the environmentalists’ reasons for blocking dissenting voices, and to understand them I am trying to suspend judgement of what they’re doing. I think they are partially correct, that some problems the world faces, are problems that need a culture of cooperation to help solve, but, cooperation is only part of the solution. I think you’re completely right, that rational thought is still the bedrock we need for any progress on any problem.
Even if we all became “better” people by virtue of letting go of material desires, letting go of aggressive competitiveness, letting go of consumerism, letting go of greed (which is the aim, as one environmentalist told me, of CO2 cuts), even if we did that, we still have to figure out how to solve environmental problems–is wind really effective? is nuclear the better option? is CO2 even a problem or is it a benefit? how many people can we feed? what new technologies might be developed? and to solve those problems selflessly, we need clever analysts and rational thinkers.
Robert E. Phelan (14:43:47) :
Oh, well.
I am sorry the sarcasm was a little too subtle for me.
At least I feel better now.
Stefan (15:00:03)
Thank you for explaining that; and my apologies, it was not my intent to malign you in any way.
It seems to me that concerns over climate variation (and the emerging concepts surrounding “virtual water”) are symptoms of an increasing global population – something that seems to be a taboo subject of discussion.
I am pleased to see population in your list of parameters to be considered. I will follow your posts here with more interest from now on.
Ron de Haan (12:58:15) :
Because the warmists lack the science, the so called “consensus” has become the last frontier.
They simply send out those who threaten the consensus.
What should worry us is the fact that these are practices that were common in socialist societies like the USSR, Nazi Germany and China.
It’s a strong indicator where we are heading
Too true. Over the last week I have had an email discussion with a person who I once counted as a friend. To set the stage, 3 years ago, we agreed not to discuss GW or CC because it disturbed the other party greatly, being a true believer. In the past week the individual sent me two pro-AGW emails (remember the agreement). The first I ignored, the second I responded to by providing an alternative view of the subject. The insults, invectives and ad hominem comments flowed from the other side while I read with fascination each response, not taking the bait, so to speak.
When the other party ended by stating that he would reserve the right to “correct” statements made by others where the science was faulty. I responded identically. My response garnered the statement “don’t bother if you’re just going to quote from the typical skeptic psycho-babble.
In essence those of us on the skeptic side are not allowed to speak since the few sceptics that are left are all paid by the oil companies anyway, so have no credibility.
Saddly, a friendship is broken, not likely to be rekindled. I hope this is not typical in the lives of others here.
Richard (21:30:48) :
From what I have read Mitchell Taylor seems to be an eminent Polar Bear researcher. To focus back on content and substance, which your post above seems to be lacking, do you have anything to say about why Mitchell Taylor should be excluded from a conference on Polar Bears because of his views on human induced climate change?
Since my earlier response appears to have been censored (ironic in a thread about censorship) I’ll try again on this point.
Taylor was a member of the group as an official member of the Canadian delegation by virtue of his position as Polar bear biologist for the Government of Nunavut. When he retired from that position his place on that delegation was taken by his successor as the polar bear biologist for the Government of Nunavut, Dr. Elizabeth (Lily) Peacock. In order to attend the group’s meeting Taylor needed an invitation as one of the limited number of ‘invited specialists’, he didn’t get it.