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
”Mikael Pihlström says: blah”
I think your replies and posts indicate that you do not fully understand what the article is about. It is nothing directly to do with AGW/Climate change. It is about third party intrusions into a bone fide conference into selectivly ‘disinviting’ speakers.
So Mikael would you argue that such intervervention is acceptable ? If so, then put your argument why.
Theo Goodwin says:
September 25, 2011 at 1:03 pm
[SNIP: Theo, don’t spoil a good reply with this kind of stuff. -REP, mod]
Well done. You get an assist on that one.
Thank you Dodgy Geezer for a very clear translation. Dr. Masson is obviously extremely disappointed by the weakness of his society in preventing alternate views, the basis of scientific endeavour.
Dr Masson
Thank you.
M Pihlstroem
You are right about blog policy regarding personal attacks. Both you and others came close to the line here. Now back to the science. You refer to “the initiated”. The true initiation of Science is Scientific Method. “Nullius In Verba” to quote the forgotten motto of the Royal Society – “On the words of nobody”. In other words, you have to check the science YOURSELF from first principles, trusting no peer reviews, no PhD’s, no professorships, no IPCC, I repeat, none of these. “Initiation” is a word of Latin origins that has to do with going back to beginnings, in other words, Nullius In Verba. You, sir, have to do your own scientific checks. And you have to check the best evidence on all sides. And you have to watch your state of mind, to see you are not being swayed by emotion – but also to pay attention to emotion, because this too is evidence. Yes, this is a lot of work. Thankfully it was made possible for me, because John Cook pointed me to all the “skeptics arguments” where I would need to consider evidence from both sides; and because I was on longterm sick note. So I wrote it all up. Click my name. And no, I have no science degree of any kind. But I’m sure many others here who DO have science degrees would concur with what I’ve said here.