The amazing thing here is that CNN even covered this! Kudos to them, for a change. Also amazing is that in covering it that they actually spent more than 32 seconds on it.
David Gladstone
December 8, 2009 10:38 pm
Who are those artificial humanoids on CNN? Campbell Brown ? Anderson Cooper? Pinheads with opinions and agendas, just what we need more of. The Cooper Pinhead just said he was tired of listening to scientists, so he was going to the arctic and get the real poop! he would be keepin’ those glaciers honest, believe you me. These kind of people impersonating Walter Cronkite or other real journalists make ‘me want to hurl’!
What’s the deal with the small non sexual men on TV, those like Cooper paired with amazon looking babes, who can barely pronounce Kabul properly, but they can flex those lips to let you know what you’re missing!
photon without a Higgs
December 8, 2009 11:00 pm
Mailman (12:52:24) : Jesus, give McIntyre a break. He is a statistician, not a magician!
Mailman
I agree. And I like it that he is that way.
It seems some people were looking for P.T. Barnum.
photon without a Higgs
December 8, 2009 11:08 pm
philincalifornia (21:44:01) : Naaah, not at all. The first thing I would think if I saw a huge iceberg off San Francisco is errrmmmm “Global Warming” !!!!!
—————————-
And how about the snow from the early Monday morning hours snowfall that still can be seen in the hills above Alamo and Danville west side of 680! Not to mention Mt. Diablo still is half covered from the same snowfall.
photon without a Higgs
December 8, 2009 11:38 pm
Tyler (15:49:37) : In case anybody needs a transcript I took the time to make one for everybody. I hope I transcribed this accurately:
CNN: “I’m joined by a notable Princeton Professor who I trust with my own children, our own reporter, John Roberts, who has practically researched everything there is to know on this subject, and just knows everything about practically anything because he a reporter, and two crazy whackos who are all in a tizzy over being personally attacked in some emails that were stolen illegally by some nutcase climate skeptic hacker, while we continue to warm the Earth uncontrollably. Thank you all for being here.”
———————————————
“emails that were stolen illegally by some nutcase climate skeptic hacker”
No wait, should have read
“emails that were stolen illegally by some covert Russian government plot operative then sent to a nutcase climate skeptic/denier hacker who thinks smoking doesn’t cause cancer, pollution is a-okay, the earth is, and I quote, “of course flat”, who voted for Bush and Cheney, twice, and who was paid by Saudi big oil money to lie about global warming” JUST KIDDING 😉
Ted Annonson
December 8, 2009 11:40 pm
1. How good is NASA data? Check this out. http://zapruder.nl/images/uploads/screenhunter3qk7.gif
2. Global Warming, Climate Change, retreating glaciers, rising sea levels, etc. are all distractions to confuse the public, and divert attention from demanding proof of the idea that humans are causing AWG.
3. According to 2001 report of IPCC, less than 5% of the co2 in the atmosphere is from human sources. Where are the papers that show that the probability of the human portion of co2 causing the global warming is greater than 0%???
4. Studies during the 1960’s & 70’s showed that co2 from each year was absorbed by the earth in a logrithmic manner, ie, 50% gone in 5 to7 years, 75% in 10 to 14 years, 87 1/2%in 15 to21 years and so on. in 1000 years there would be so few left that Mr. Oppenheimer cound count them without having to take off his shoes.
Oslo
December 9, 2009 3:50 am
I think Mr McIntyre did a great job. He is genuine, sober and solid, contrary to the popular image of sceptics. I think he lends credibility to sceptical science.
Good job.
I don’t believe it’s a conspiracy – just a shared mindset that allows people to distort and conceal with a good conscience.
See “Climategate: The good shepherds”:
Roger Knights
December 9, 2009 5:04 am
David Alan wrote:
“A sentiment among many an environmentalist is that regardless of the state of climate change, cleaning up pollution is the only pure crusade.
‘The conservation of natural resources and the protection of the environment from man-made pollution is the only crusade we must not surrender. The sceptics of climate change, are the enemy of the state.’ …. anonymous
Somehow, a sceptic of AGW is not sensitive to the issue of protecting the environment. Instead, we are viewed as scum and miscreants, followers of Big Oil and propagandists for world destruction. And all of this is based on choosing a side on the theory of Manmade CO2 is the evil pollutant behind everything wrong with our planet.”
Conflict over many issues is largely social posturing — i.e., status-seeking and self-preening — in order to get “one up” on some demonized Other. By down-grading deniers as evil incarnate, the warmist on the other end of the seesaw elevates his self- and social image. The ultimate basis of this one-upsmanship is our ape-driven instinct, especially among guys, to be the troupe’s Top Banana. As Huxley wrote: Surely it’s obvious
Doesn’t every schoolboy know it
Ends are ape-chosen
Only the means are man’s
For more on one-upsmanship, see the book of that title by Stephen Potter. Or start with his first book, Gamesmanship, available here on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Practice-Gamesmanship-Winning-Actually-Cheating/dp/1607960192/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260362948&sr=8-1
Roger Knights
December 9, 2009 5:21 am
“What’s disconcerting is the idea that 97% of climate scientists agree with the basic premise of AGW.”
Here’s what I posted on the WSJ site yesterday about this poll: “”In a recent survey of more than 3,000 Earth scientists, 82% agreed that human activity is a ‘significant contributing factor’ in changing global temperatures. Specialists were in greater agreement: 75 of the 77 climate scientists who actively publish in the field—about 97%—agreed with the statement.””
“Human activity” includes all the land use changes man has made, such as from forest to agriculture or urbanization. Therefore a Yes answer doesn’t necessarily implicate CO2. And a “significant” effect doesn’t necessarily imply a “catastrophic” one.
Roger Knights
December 9, 2009 5:38 am
mkurbo wrote: “The AGW movement was born of the far left, nurtured by the liberal left and sold to the masses by the mainstream left – period. Those are the facts and to remove them is disingenuous and revisionist history.”
This may be true, but it’s counterproductive to harp on it here, as it alienates many potential backsliders from warmism. (Also, I suspect the warmists could cite a few Republicans among the notables in their ranks, if pressed.)
I think it’s not so much leftism that’s the driver as “the anointed” — the self-consciously “aware and concerned,” highly educated cognitive elite who resonate with one another across all sectors of society and buy into one another’s rationales, tactics, credibility, and value-priorities.
One of their main concerns is to avoid being consigned by their fellows in this group into the ranks of the “benighted” (the crudely selfish and ignorant), which is why accusations of being tainted by Big Oil or right-wing think tanks or Fox News or IDers or flat-earthers make such powerful and commonly used weapons by the groups’ mind-guards in keeping the rank and file in line.
IOW, in large part their motivations are partly idealistic, but also partly social and psychological, in that they want to be part of the leading edge of a high-status in-group, and also want to nourish and bask in the feeling of self-approbation that this reflected self-worth, and this perception of acting idealistically, gives them. Here’s a link to a wonderful article exploring their motivations: vulgarmorality (17:48:19) :
What emerges from the source code, data losses, emails, etc., is a sense that these climatologists believed they were playing a larger game than science: they were good shepherds, bringing us out of the dark. The same, with few qualifications, can be said of the media – which explains its spotty and off-center reporting of Climategate – and, for that matter, of many politicians and governments. See “Climategate: The good shepherds”: http://vulgarmorality.wordpress.com/2009/12/06/climategate-the-good-shepherds/
Sharpshooter
December 9, 2009 6:16 am
I find CNN’s poll that 97% of “scientists” believed that man was “responsible” for global warming, hilarious.
Talk about nebulous statements and likely cherry-picked polling (like CNN hasn’t done that several times before).
So CNN is a REAL news channel? Well, so were TASS and PRAVDA in their estimation.
Jack Simmons
December 9, 2009 6:26 am
liberalbiorealist (10:09:25) :
Seriously, is there really anything remotely resembling compelling evidence that we are now entering a period of global cooling? It’s one thing to say that we are in a fairly extended plateau in global temperatures that is starting to run against the predictions of the warmists; that seems to be quite a reasonable statement. It’s quite another to say that there’s good positive evidence of global cooling. Projecting such a trend is way, way past what the data might possibly signal.
This is not a projection, it is current
trend,with the added feature of depicting impact of CO2 on temperature. Look at the graphs on this website.
While no one really knows what the trend will be, we can clearly see CO2 levels, from the time consistent measures were started in 1958, have not correlated well with global temperatures.
We can also see a downward trend in temperatures from roughly 2000 to the present. At best, for the AGW point of view, the temperature trend has flattened. In any event, is not correlating with the increased levels of CO2.
Sharpshooter
December 9, 2009 6:31 am
You don’t need a conspiracy on a large scale.
If 10-20 people generate the “data” that another 2,000 rely on, the the “conspiracy” involves 10-20, not 2,000. The other 1,980 are merely dupes, even if they’re doing it for the grant $$$.
Kevin Kilty
December 9, 2009 6:32 am
Maybe there is room for a precautionary principle here. If all the pertiinent time series (CRU, GISS, GHCN) have a common point of failure, then we should suspend decisions made on the basis of those time series for the time being. I mean, its much better to procede with caution and assume the data are unreliable, than it is to rush into some course of action without all the facts being settled…
Pamela Gray
December 9, 2009 6:42 am
And those whose job it is to explain weather and climate to the world on a daily basis would heartily disagree in far greater numbers with the “consensus”. This reminds me of the history of Autism. Nearly all research scientists at one time thought that Autism was the result of poor mother-child interaction. When mothers found the internet and started talking to one another, they discovered a random nature to the affliction and a false notion that it was tied to mothering style. Turns out they were right. The folks on the frontline who experience a phenomenon everyday and then get to compare notes with other folks who do the same thing form the most important function in the chain of scientific steps: observation. Is this step beneath ivory clad scientists? One wonders.
Henry chance
December 9, 2009 7:01 am
MB (11:31:37) :
The false logic at the end is astounding.
He posits that you have to accept that there is a massive conspiracy between all 2500″
Since I may be one of the few scientists on this board that had done experiments on humans. If we give 2,500 scientists false data, we find they will all get pretty much the same conclusion.
If we threaten 2,500 scientist with loss of grants and loss of publication priviledges, we reinforce behaviors and “shape their findings”.
eRtwngr (10:07:25) : What’s disconcerting is the idea that 97% of climate scientists agree with the basic premise of AGW.
Notes about this “survey”, Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change – Doran 2009
– 7054 scientists did not reply to the survey
– 567 Scientists Surveyed do not believe man is causing climate change
– The “97%” is only 75 out of 77 “specialists” out of the 3146 who participated in the survey out of the 10,257 Earth Scientists who were sent an invitation.
Result = Joke.
Vorlath
December 9, 2009 7:08 am
McIntyre did fine. He’s the only one who looked sane.
JoeyD
December 9, 2009 7:11 am
photon without a Higgs (21:40:04) & Buddenbrook (21:21:11)
I wasn’t suggesting that McIntyre comment on the policies, I was suggesting that McIntyre and Horner should have challenged Oppenheimer’s claim that CO2 stays in the atmosphere for “thousands of years” or “the glaciers are melting, globe is warming, blah blah blah.” Instead, they completely ignored those points and acted like they themselves accepted them as truth.
Skeptics finally have the spot light, let’s not blow it (again).
Richard Halpern
December 9, 2009 7:33 am
joeyD
Take comfort in the fact that 1) McIntyre will be better prepared next time. See his post at Climateaudit, and 2) No one watches CNN!
Bruce
December 9, 2009 8:43 am
Some media advice from a self-appointed expert (expertise based on watching/listening to lots of news programmes):
The important trick in this kind of interview is to keep rabbiting on without pausing for breath (doesn’t matter if you’re talking sense or not, but you should sound confident0. That way, the other guy doesn’t get an word in edgeways. Ideally, you will not only hog the airtime, but whenever the other guy, or even the interviewer tries to interject, you will complain in offended tones, saying “do you mind? Let me finish my answer!” People who are only half-listening (that’s most people) will think that it’s the other person being rude, not you. Fluent rabbiting requires one to rehearse talking points until they’re instinctive and can be rattled off mindlessly, regardless of relevance.
Jason
December 9, 2009 9:35 am
Wow! As usual, the media trots out a “respected scientist”, and all he (Oppenheimer) can do is regurgitate the Greenies talking points. That was an example of a scientist being very unscientific.
Atmospheric CO2 life expectancy is up to millenia now? Really? LOL!
2500 scientists at the UN? Really? Well no, but he still thinks so, LOL!
Clueless, just clueless.
Roger Knights
December 9, 2009 10:04 am
Pamela Gray (06:42:52) :
“This reminds me of the history of Autism. Nearly all research scientists at one time thought that Autism was the result of poor mother-child interaction.”
That’s an example with an eerie parallel to the current situation, in that the autism consensus was “engineered” in a similar way. One highly opinionated and overbearing psychiatrist, Bruno Bettelheim, author of The Empty Fortress and a master at media manipulation, ran a leading, well-funded autism in Chicago, and trained many of the specialists in the field. He and they in turn enforced an orthodoxy for decades and marginalized dissent with heavy-handed tactics. See the book, Madness of the Couch, for a rundown of the damage their blinkered arrogance inflicted.
Roger Knights
December 9, 2009 10:06 am
Oops: Change to “… ran a leading, well-funded autism treatment center in Chicago, …”
The amazing thing here is that CNN even covered this! Kudos to them, for a change. Also amazing is that in covering it that they actually spent more than 32 seconds on it.
Who are those artificial humanoids on CNN? Campbell Brown ? Anderson Cooper? Pinheads with opinions and agendas, just what we need more of. The Cooper Pinhead just said he was tired of listening to scientists, so he was going to the arctic and get the real poop! he would be keepin’ those glaciers honest, believe you me. These kind of people impersonating Walter Cronkite or other real journalists make ‘me want to hurl’!
What’s the deal with the small non sexual men on TV, those like Cooper paired with amazon looking babes, who can barely pronounce Kabul properly, but they can flex those lips to let you know what you’re missing!
Mailman (12:52:24) :
Jesus, give McIntyre a break. He is a statistician, not a magician!
Mailman
I agree. And I like it that he is that way.
It seems some people were looking for P.T. Barnum.
philincalifornia (21:44:01) :
Naaah, not at all. The first thing I would think if I saw a huge iceberg off San Francisco is errrmmmm “Global Warming” !!!!!
—————————-
And how about the snow from the early Monday morning hours snowfall that still can be seen in the hills above Alamo and Danville west side of 680! Not to mention Mt. Diablo still is half covered from the same snowfall.
Tyler (15:49:37) :
In case anybody needs a transcript I took the time to make one for everybody. I hope I transcribed this accurately:
CNN: “I’m joined by a notable Princeton Professor who I trust with my own children, our own reporter, John Roberts, who has practically researched everything there is to know on this subject, and just knows everything about practically anything because he a reporter, and two crazy whackos who are all in a tizzy over being personally attacked in some emails that were stolen illegally by some nutcase climate skeptic hacker, while we continue to warm the Earth uncontrollably. Thank you all for being here.”
———————————————
“emails that were stolen illegally by some nutcase climate skeptic hacker”
No wait, should have read
“emails that were stolen illegally by some covert Russian government plot operative then sent to a nutcase climate skeptic/denier hacker who thinks smoking doesn’t cause cancer, pollution is a-okay, the earth is, and I quote, “of course flat”, who voted for Bush and Cheney, twice, and who was paid by Saudi big oil money to lie about global warming”
JUST KIDDING 😉
1. How good is NASA data? Check this out.
http://zapruder.nl/images/uploads/screenhunter3qk7.gif
2. Global Warming, Climate Change, retreating glaciers, rising sea levels, etc. are all distractions to confuse the public, and divert attention from demanding proof of the idea that humans are causing AWG.
3. According to 2001 report of IPCC, less than 5% of the co2 in the atmosphere is from human sources. Where are the papers that show that the probability of the human portion of co2 causing the global warming is greater than 0%???
4. Studies during the 1960’s & 70’s showed that co2 from each year was absorbed by the earth in a logrithmic manner, ie, 50% gone in 5 to7 years, 75% in 10 to 14 years, 87 1/2%in 15 to21 years and so on. in 1000 years there would be so few left that Mr. Oppenheimer cound count them without having to take off his shoes.
I think Mr McIntyre did a great job. He is genuine, sober and solid, contrary to the popular image of sceptics. I think he lends credibility to sceptical science.
Good job.
I don’t believe it’s a conspiracy – just a shared mindset that allows people to distort and conceal with a good conscience.
See “Climategate: The good shepherds”:
David Alan wrote:
“A sentiment among many an environmentalist is that regardless of the state of climate change, cleaning up pollution is the only pure crusade.
‘The conservation of natural resources and the protection of the environment from man-made pollution is the only crusade we must not surrender. The sceptics of climate change, are the enemy of the state.’ …. anonymous
Somehow, a sceptic of AGW is not sensitive to the issue of protecting the environment. Instead, we are viewed as scum and miscreants, followers of Big Oil and propagandists for world destruction.
And all of this is based on choosing a side on the theory of Manmade CO2 is the evil pollutant behind everything wrong with our planet.”
Conflict over many issues is largely social posturing — i.e., status-seeking and self-preening — in order to get “one up” on some demonized Other. By down-grading deniers as evil incarnate, the warmist on the other end of the seesaw elevates his self- and social image. The ultimate basis of this one-upsmanship is our ape-driven instinct, especially among guys, to be the troupe’s Top Banana. As Huxley wrote:
Surely it’s obvious
Doesn’t every schoolboy know it
Ends are ape-chosen
Only the means are man’s
For more on one-upsmanship, see the book of that title by Stephen Potter. Or start with his first book, Gamesmanship, available here on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Practice-Gamesmanship-Winning-Actually-Cheating/dp/1607960192/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260362948&sr=8-1
“What’s disconcerting is the idea that 97% of climate scientists agree with the basic premise of AGW.”
Here’s what I posted on the WSJ site yesterday about this poll:
“”In a recent survey of more than 3,000 Earth scientists, 82% agreed that human activity is a ‘significant contributing factor’ in changing global temperatures. Specialists were in greater agreement: 75 of the 77 climate scientists who actively publish in the field—about 97%—agreed with the statement.””
“Human activity” includes all the land use changes man has made, such as from forest to agriculture or urbanization. Therefore a Yes answer doesn’t necessarily implicate CO2. And a “significant” effect doesn’t necessarily imply a “catastrophic” one.
mkurbo wrote:
“The AGW movement was born of the far left, nurtured by the liberal left and sold to the masses by the mainstream left – period. Those are the facts and to remove them is disingenuous and revisionist history.”
This may be true, but it’s counterproductive to harp on it here, as it alienates many potential backsliders from warmism. (Also, I suspect the warmists could cite a few Republicans among the notables in their ranks, if pressed.)
I think it’s not so much leftism that’s the driver as “the anointed” — the self-consciously “aware and concerned,” highly educated cognitive elite who resonate with one another across all sectors of society and buy into one another’s rationales, tactics, credibility, and value-priorities.
One of their main concerns is to avoid being consigned by their fellows in this group into the ranks of the “benighted” (the crudely selfish and ignorant), which is why accusations of being tainted by Big Oil or right-wing think tanks or Fox News or IDers or flat-earthers make such powerful and commonly used weapons by the groups’ mind-guards in keeping the rank and file in line.
IOW, in large part their motivations are partly idealistic, but also partly social and psychological, in that they want to be part of the leading edge of a high-status in-group, and also want to nourish and bask in the feeling of self-approbation that this reflected self-worth, and this perception of acting idealistically, gives them. Here’s a link to a wonderful article exploring their motivations:
vulgarmorality (17:48:19) :
What emerges from the source code, data losses, emails, etc., is a sense that these climatologists believed they were playing a larger game than science: they were good shepherds, bringing us out of the dark. The same, with few qualifications, can be said of the media – which explains its spotty and off-center reporting of Climategate – and, for that matter, of many politicians and governments. See “Climategate: The good shepherds”:
http://vulgarmorality.wordpress.com/2009/12/06/climategate-the-good-shepherds/
I find CNN’s poll that 97% of “scientists” believed that man was “responsible” for global warming, hilarious.
Talk about nebulous statements and likely cherry-picked polling (like CNN hasn’t done that several times before).
So CNN is a REAL news channel? Well, so were TASS and PRAVDA in their estimation.
liberalbiorealist (10:09:25) :
This is not a projection, it is current
trend,with the added feature of depicting impact of CO2 on temperature. Look at the graphs on this website.
While no one really knows what the trend will be, we can clearly see CO2 levels, from the time consistent measures were started in 1958, have not correlated well with global temperatures.
We can also see a downward trend in temperatures from roughly 2000 to the present. At best, for the AGW point of view, the temperature trend has flattened. In any event, is not correlating with the increased levels of CO2.
You don’t need a conspiracy on a large scale.
If 10-20 people generate the “data” that another 2,000 rely on, the the “conspiracy” involves 10-20, not 2,000. The other 1,980 are merely dupes, even if they’re doing it for the grant $$$.
Maybe there is room for a precautionary principle here. If all the pertiinent time series (CRU, GISS, GHCN) have a common point of failure, then we should suspend decisions made on the basis of those time series for the time being. I mean, its much better to procede with caution and assume the data are unreliable, than it is to rush into some course of action without all the facts being settled…
And those whose job it is to explain weather and climate to the world on a daily basis would heartily disagree in far greater numbers with the “consensus”. This reminds me of the history of Autism. Nearly all research scientists at one time thought that Autism was the result of poor mother-child interaction. When mothers found the internet and started talking to one another, they discovered a random nature to the affliction and a false notion that it was tied to mothering style. Turns out they were right. The folks on the frontline who experience a phenomenon everyday and then get to compare notes with other folks who do the same thing form the most important function in the chain of scientific steps: observation. Is this step beneath ivory clad scientists? One wonders.
MB (11:31:37) :
The false logic at the end is astounding.
He posits that you have to accept that there is a massive conspiracy between all 2500″
Since I may be one of the few scientists on this board that had done experiments on humans. If we give 2,500 scientists false data, we find they will all get pretty much the same conclusion.
If we threaten 2,500 scientist with loss of grants and loss of publication priviledges, we reinforce behaviors and “shape their findings”.
eRtwngr (10:07:25) :
What’s disconcerting is the idea that 97% of climate scientists agree with the basic premise of AGW.
Notes about this “survey”,
Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change – Doran 2009
– 7054 scientists did not reply to the survey
– 567 Scientists Surveyed do not believe man is causing climate change
– The “97%” is only 75 out of 77 “specialists” out of the 3146 who participated in the survey out of the 10,257 Earth Scientists who were sent an invitation.
Result = Joke.
McIntyre did fine. He’s the only one who looked sane.
photon without a Higgs (21:40:04) & Buddenbrook (21:21:11)
I wasn’t suggesting that McIntyre comment on the policies, I was suggesting that McIntyre and Horner should have challenged Oppenheimer’s claim that CO2 stays in the atmosphere for “thousands of years” or “the glaciers are melting, globe is warming, blah blah blah.” Instead, they completely ignored those points and acted like they themselves accepted them as truth.
Skeptics finally have the spot light, let’s not blow it (again).
joeyD
Take comfort in the fact that 1) McIntyre will be better prepared next time. See his post at Climateaudit, and 2) No one watches CNN!
Some media advice from a self-appointed expert (expertise based on watching/listening to lots of news programmes):
The important trick in this kind of interview is to keep rabbiting on without pausing for breath (doesn’t matter if you’re talking sense or not, but you should sound confident0. That way, the other guy doesn’t get an word in edgeways. Ideally, you will not only hog the airtime, but whenever the other guy, or even the interviewer tries to interject, you will complain in offended tones, saying “do you mind? Let me finish my answer!” People who are only half-listening (that’s most people) will think that it’s the other person being rude, not you. Fluent rabbiting requires one to rehearse talking points until they’re instinctive and can be rattled off mindlessly, regardless of relevance.
Wow! As usual, the media trots out a “respected scientist”, and all he (Oppenheimer) can do is regurgitate the Greenies talking points. That was an example of a scientist being very unscientific.
Atmospheric CO2 life expectancy is up to millenia now? Really? LOL!
2500 scientists at the UN? Really? Well no, but he still thinks so, LOL!
Clueless, just clueless.
Pamela Gray (06:42:52) :
“This reminds me of the history of Autism. Nearly all research scientists at one time thought that Autism was the result of poor mother-child interaction.”
That’s an example with an eerie parallel to the current situation, in that the autism consensus was “engineered” in a similar way. One highly opinionated and overbearing psychiatrist, Bruno Bettelheim, author of The Empty Fortress and a master at media manipulation, ran a leading, well-funded autism in Chicago, and trained many of the specialists in the field. He and they in turn enforced an orthodoxy for decades and marginalized dissent with heavy-handed tactics. See the book, Madness of the Couch, for a rundown of the damage their blinkered arrogance inflicted.
Oops: Change to “… ran a leading, well-funded autism treatment center in Chicago, …”