From Bishop Hill, news via Pierre Gosselin that the decision by SEII to disinvite speakers to a conference (including Dr. Fred Singer) has backfired, badly.
Gosselin is reporting that a prominent engineer has resigned from one of France’s [sic*] learned societies over its bad behaviour on climate change – SEII, which appears to be an interdisciplinary body, disinvited two prominent sceptics from its conference after pressure from the IPCC.
Thanks to Messenger for this rough translation of the resignation letter:
[excerpts]
It has come to my knowledge that the official document put out by the Secretary General n which he informed the Administrators that with regard to the Climategate affair.
…
For myself, to put it plainly, this action was nothing other than the trafficking of influence, based on defamatory declarations that you had not taken the trouble to verify yourself and you would have been better to admit that you had come under external pressure from SEII [for?] appearing to censure those who defended a point of view which was opposite to that of M. VAN YPERSELE and those authorities that he represents. These facts are incontestable, whatever casuistical arguments you are tempted to develop to suggest that I had committed a serious fault in procedure.
…
I can no longer accept that neither you nor the Executive Bureau share [the same] values which are dear to me and on which I have never compromised nor will ever compromise in the future. In consequence of which, I present you with my resignation from all the duties which I have performed on behalf of SEII. Also I no longer wish to appear on the list of members, nor to receive any more of your emails.
*Update: J-Cl Michel points out in comments it is actually one of Belgium’s learned societies
“Smokey says:
September 25, 2011 at 5:34 am
Pihlström <— a worm criticizing a lion."
Unfair to the worms.
Mikael Pihlström: “A prominent engineer? Wow. The renowned climate scientist Fred Singer? What a loss for any learned society and for us all.”
—
The loss concerns the freedom of scientific discussion and the credibility of science as a whole, not this or that individual.
Whatever your stand on the global warming issue may be, you should be glad that at least some individuals stand up for that freedom.
RichieP says:
September 25, 2011 at 7:40 am
“Smokey says:
September 25, 2011 at 5:34 am
Pihlström <— a worm criticizing a lion."
Unfair to the worms.
—————————–
These contrarians, Nobel prize winners in Physics etc., are undoubtedly fine intellectuals in
their own respective fields, but that does not allow them to pronounce sweeping verdicts
without bothering to read up on climate science. It is your lot that expose them to ridicule by hyping up every resignation. Please make a quick calculation: How many members of learned societies might there be globally; how many active scientist members; how many climate scientists?These resignations are insignificant. It’s like saying that the New York subway will
have to close down because a thousand passengers wowed to never use it again last year.
BTW Have we meet before? Down here at the worm level?
Mike says:
September 25, 2011 at 8:15 am
The loss concerns the freedom of scientific discussion and the credibility of science as a whole, not this or that individual.
Whatever your stand on the global warming issue may be, you should be glad that at least some individuals stand up for that freedom.
—
In principle I agree, but in this case these professional disinformation officers cynically
misuse open venues, never correct false claims although these have been pointed out to them
over and over again. It is understandable that doors eventually close for them, simply because
of quality control concerns.
If anyone watched some of the Feynman video, in one lecture he says that you confirm a theory by experimentation or experience. Real world verification. If the theory disagrees with the real world, the theory is wrong, no matter how beautiful the theory or who proposed the theory.
When politicians get involved, that approach goes right out the window.
In case the moderators didn’t catch it, Dr. Masson chimed in above. Thanks for visiting this blog, sir.
Mikael Pihlström says: September 25, 2011 at 8:25 am
Another variation of the “only climate scientists can pronounce on climate science” meme. Pathetic. You have no idea of what these dissidents are familiar with yet you declare them irrelevant. Again, pathetic.
The letter of resignation is in florid, but not floridly polite, French.
Let me give the first two paragraphs a try here. I think DodgyGeezer got the first paragraph right, but the charges Dr. Masson is making in the second paragraph are somewhat different.
Je viens de prendre connaissance du document officiel établi par le Secrétaire Général de la SEII relatif à l’affaire « Climategate », par lequel il informe les Administrateurs que le Bureau Exécutif, à une très large majorité, vous a réitéré sa confiance, malgré les évidences factuelles, que j’ai fournies antérieurement, qui établissent la réalité des mensonges que vous leur avez faits.
I have just become aware of the official statement from the Secretary General of SEII, in which he informs the Administrators that the Executive Board has, by an overwhelming majority, reaffirmed its confidence in you, despite the factual evidence, which I have already provided, documenting the lies that you have told them.
Il appert que, après l’avoir nié par écrit, vous avez bien dû reconnaître que vous avez agi suite à une intervention d’une « tierce personne », comme le qualifie pudiquement le Secrétaire Général dans sa lettre aux Administrateurs, cette intervention d’une tierce personne étant en fait une lettre de protestation du Professeur VAN YPERSELE. Pour moi, en clair, il ne s’agit de rien d’autres que d’avoir participé à un trafic d’influence, basé sur des déclarations diffamantes que vous n’avez même pas pris la peine de vérifier, et vous avez bien cédé à des pressions externes à la SEII visant à censurer des intervenants défendant un point de vue opposé à celui de M. VAN YPERSELE et des instances qu’il représente.
It appears that, after having denied it in writing, you have had to admit that you acted in response to the intervention of a “third party,” as the Secretary General shamefacedly calls him in his letter to the Administrators—this third-party intervention in fact being a letter of complaint from Professor Van Ypersele. It is clear to me that all you were doing was colluding in an exercise of improper influence, based on defamatory declarations that you did not even take the take the trouble to verify, and you really did give in to external pressure applied to SEII, with the aim of censoring invited speakers defending a point of view opposed to that of Mr. Van Ypersele and the constituencies that he represents.
Mikael Pihlström says: “… these professional disinformation officers cynically
misuse open venues, never correct false claims although these have been pointed out to them over and over again. It is understandable that doors eventually close for them …”
—
If there is one thing that the U of Anglia emails showed beyond a doubt, it was that there is a clear strategy to exclude and silence opponents of the current orthodoxy using tactics other than winning arguments.
Regarding the never corrected false claims, surely you are referring to the hockey stick?
Sorry, in the first paragraph I left out a phrase.
it should read:
I have just become aware of the official statement from the Secretary General of SEII concerning the “Climategate” affair, in which he informs the Administrators that the Executive Board has, by an overwhelming majority, reaffirmed its confidence in you, despite the factual evidence, which I have already provided, documenting the lies that you have told them.
“Climategate” in this context refers to the disinvitation of the speakers from the SEII climate forum—not to what we usually call Climategate.
oh! Dr. Masson! Bravo!
you did yourself great honor.
if other scientists understood that their reputations suffer merely by failing to take a stand against corruption, perhaps they’d be motivated to protect what they seem to value lightly.
when i hear ‘scientists say’, i now cringe automatically.
when i hear the name Dr. Masson – i shall relax a little – and wonder why there are so few other men of virtue.
It is understandable that doors eventually close for them, simply because of quality control concerns.
So which doors have eventually closed to Michael Mann, simply because of quality control concerns?
Mikael Pihlström says:
“BTW Have we meet before? Down here at the worm level?”
No.
“Nobel prize winners in Physics etc., are undoubtedly fine intellectuals in
their own respective fields, but that does not allow them to pronounce sweeping verdicts
without bothering to read up on climate science.”
Really. You mean, like this guy?
Education:
B.A., Physics and Mathematics, 1963, University of Iowa
M.S., Astronomy, 1965, University of Iowa
Ph.D., Physics, 1967, University of Iowa
[That’s the education background of NASA’s James Hansen, the foremost advocate of anthropogenic global warming.]
Robert E. Phelan says:
September 25, 2011 at 9:24 am
Mikael Pihlström says: September 25, 2011 at 8:25 am
Another variation of the “Robert E. Phelan says:
September 25, 2011 at 9:24 am
Mikael Pihlström says: September 25, 2011 at 8:25 am
Another variation of the “only climate scientists can pronounce on climate science” meme. Pathetic. You have no idea of what these dissidents are familiar with yet you declare them irrelevant. Again, pathetic.
.
—–
Where did I say “only climate scientists can pronounce on climate science” ? Nowhere.
You made it up. I did say that if you want to refute AGW theory you have to read up
on what it actually says and what evidence is presented, whether you are a nobelist,
a truck driver or a pathetic blogger. The statements by Giaever (recent WUWT post)
and Dyson I have seen are clever, but sweeping objections on grounds, which have
already been evaluated and found invalid by more initiated researchers.
———————
henri Masson,
I thank you for coming here to comment.
You have provided me with another brick to add to the weight of my judgment of the corruption of key IPCC personnel through their substantial lack of basic scientific virtues*. Now I see we have a key IPCC leader, vice president Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, who behaves in a unacceptable scientific manner.
* Scientific Virtues: integrity, independence, openness and transparency
John
Mikael Pihlström says:
September 25, 2011 at 8:32 am
Mikael, in this case, someone who knows a lot of chaotic systems, which climate is, resigns from a society, because of pressure by Van Ypersele. The latter has no peer reviewed articles about climate whatsoever, only made a report for Greenpeace and he is Vice-President of the IPCC, a pure administrative function.
In contrast, Singer was invited by the Dutch KNMI the day before for a debate with two scientists of the KNMI itself (climate modellers) and further did speak at meetings for engineering societies in other countries during his European tour. If you dislike what Singer says, the best option is to debate his opinion, not to try to suppress his opinion. The latter is the only way out for people like Van Ypersele, who’s knowledge of climate doesn’t reach the ankels of what Singer knows of the subject…
Smokey says:
September 25, 2011 at 10:05 am
Mikael Pihlström says:
“BTW Have we meet before? Down here at the worm level?”
No.
—————————
Well, usually it takes one to know one …
I thought WUWT had a policy on demeaning invective?
Thanks, Dr. Masson, for checking in above, at 9/25, 4:55AM. Congratulations on your principled stand! My reading of Marot (9/25 3:04AM) is that he/she is on your side and was trying to be helpful.
Although the main post does not mention it, the linked notrickszone.com page indicates that person who has resigned is the above Dr. Ir. Henri A. Masson, coordinator of the SEII conference in question (SEII = European Society of Engineers and Industrialists). Besides Fred Singer, Dr. Claes Johnson was also disinvited.
Dr. Masson explains that Dr. Ir. is the Belgian equivalent of Dr. Eng. I’m guessing that Ir. stands for Ingenieur?
On continental Europe the title of Engineer is revered well above that of accountants, doctors and lawyers. Not like in the UK where an engineer repairs your dishwasher.
So any disparaging because Dr Masson is only an Engineer is unfounded and counter productive.
Mikael Pihlström,
I did say that if you want to refute AGW theory you have to read up on what it actually says and what evidence is presented, whether you are a nobelist, a truck driver or a pathetic blogger.
Nothing in your comments suggests that you have studied the theory or the evidence.
Does that make you a pathetic commenter?
Your use of the term “inititated” (as in “more initiated researchers”) suggests that membership in an exclusive fraternity carries far more weight, from your point of view, than the actual quality of research or theorizing.
Hu McCulloch says:
September 25, 2011 at 10:24 am
I’m guessing that Ir. stands for Ingenieur?
Indeed it is, and is equivalent for a M.Sc. in the Anglo-Saxon world. Dr. Ir. is the equivalent of a Ph.D., but both are a lot more difficult to obtain and (indeed are revered) far above those same titles for accountants and lawyers…
Eng. or Ing. in Belgium is a 4-year study and is more or less equivalent to a (but better than most) B.Sc.
You mention that if someone wishes to weigh-in on climate science they need to read some of the science itself, and I doubt anyone here would disagree; but, the present state of climate science appears, to us on the outside, like a club, and one may only join if one is august enough, and if one “thinks right.”
Dr. Singer makes an interesting example. He is a physicist, or maybe a “space scientist”, I don’t know which, but in 1980 (Maybe it was January 1981) I attended a talk by him at the University of Utah where he made projections of petroleum demand for what he referred to as the foreseeable future. He predicted flat or declining demand based mainly on the impact that imported cars would have eventually on U.S. consumption. I recall his talk was roundly criticized, even panned in some circles, because he lacked the right “expertise”. He was, after all, not an economist, but his analysis turned out to be quite correct all the same. Now when he enters the climate science debate he is an interloper.
One cannot address the full issue of climate science through an obsession with computer models and mean temperature. Rather there are issues that engineers, geologists, economists, meteorologists, astronomers, and even anthropologists might explain that have pertinence to this debate, irrespective of how steeped they are in “climate science.”
Mikael Pihlström says:
September 25, 2011 at 10:13 am
“Where did I say “only climate scientists can pronounce on climate science” ? Nowhere.
You made it up. I did say that if you want to refute AGW theory you have to read up
on what it actually says and what evidence is presented, whether you are a nobelist,
a truck driver or a pathetic blogger. The statements by Giaever (recent WUWT post)
and Dyson I have seen are clever, but sweeping objections on grounds, which have
already been evaluated and found invalid by more initiated researchers.”
I see that you do not read WUWT. AGW theory, so-called, has not only been refuted here but utterly savaged.
For your entertainment, I will do it again. AGW theory, so-called, consists of two things: 1) preposterous computer models that produce simulations that fail to track any known climate numbers and 2) the fantastical work of paleo-climatologists who cannot account for the behavior of their proxies over the last forty years so that they have to “hide the decline” and who lack all scientific instincts as shown in the fact that they have not accounted for the hidden decline of those proxies to this day.
[SNIP: Theo, don’t spoil a good reply with this kind of stuff. -REP, mod]
To: IPCC Vice President Jean-Pascal van Ypersele
I hope you will soon apologize for the consequences of your actions which led to SEII disinviting several speakers at a SEII planned conference. Consider the followinng quote as you reflect on the wisdom of apologizing.
John