Shameless Climate McCarthyism on full display – scientist forced to resign

Climate McCarthyism: “Are you now or have you ever been a climate skeptic?”.

joseph-mccarthyHans von Storch reports on an email that I also received today, but held waiting on a statement from The GWPF. Since von Storch has already published the email, breaking my self-imposed embargo, I’ll add the GWPF statement when it becomes available.

(GWPF statement Added below) Update: statement from Steve McIntyre added below.

von Storch writes: 


 

In an e-mail to GWPF, Lennart Bengtsson has declared his resignation of the advisory board of GWPF. His letter reads :

“I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expecting such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc. I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.

Under these situation I will be unable to contribute positively to the work of GWPF and consequently therefore I believe it is the best for me to reverse my decision to join its Board at the earliest possible time.”

I am reproducing this letter with permission of Lennart Bengtsson.


 

Source: http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.nl/2014/05/lennart-bengtsson-leaves-advisory-board.html

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

Statement from the GWPF:

Lennart Bengtsson Resigns: GWPF Voices Shock and Concern at the Extent of Intolerance within the Climate Science Community

  • Date: 14/05/14 The Global Warming Policy Foundation

It is with great regret, and profound shock, that we have received Professor Lennart Bengtsson’s letter of resignation from his membership of the GWPF’s Academic Advisory Council.

The Foundation, while of course respecting Professor Bengtsson’s decision, notes with deep concern the disgraceful intolerance within the climate science community which has prompted his resignation.

Professor Bengtsson’s letter of resignation from our Academic Advisory Council was sent to its chairman, Professor David Henderson.  His letter and Professor Henderson’s response are attached below.

Dr Benny Peiser, Director, The Global Warming Policy Foundation


 

Resigning from the GWPF

Dear Professor Henderson,

I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expecting such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc.

I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.

Under these situation I will be unable to contribute positively to the work of GWPF and consequently therefore I believe it is the best for me to reverse my decision to join its Board at the earliest possible time.

With my best regards

Lennart Bengtsson


 

Your letter of resignation

Dear Professor Bengtsson,

I have just seen your letter to me, resigning from the position which you had accepted just three weeks ago, as a member of the Global Warming Policy Foundation’s Academic Advisory Council.

Your letter came as a surprise and a shock. I greatly regret your decision, and I know that my regret will be shared by all my colleagues on the Council.

Your resignation is not only a sad event for us in the Foundation:  it is also a matter of profound and much wider concern. The reactions that you speak of, and which have forced you to reconsider the decision to join us, reveal a degree of intolerance, and a rejection of the principle of open scientific inquiry, which are truly shocking. They are evidence of a situation which the Global Warming Policy Foundation was created to remedy.

In your recent published interview with Marcel Crok, you said that ‘if I cannot stand my own opinions, life will become completely unbearable’. All of us on the Council will feel deep sympathy with you in an ordeal which you should never have had to endure.

With great regret, and all good wishes for the future.

David Henderson, Chairman, GWPF’s Academic Advisory Council

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

Statement from Steve McIntyre:

This is more shameful conduct by the climate “community”.

As a general point, it seems to me that, if climate change is as serious a problem as the climate “community” believes, then it will require large measures that need broadly based commitment from all walks of our society. Most “skeptics” are not acolytes of the Koch brothers, but people who have not thus far been convinced that the problem is as serious as represented or that the prescribed policies (wind, solar especially) provide any form of valid insurance against the risk. These are people that the climate “community” should be trying to persuade.

Begtsson’s planned participation in GWPF seemed to me to be the sort of outreach to rational skeptics that ought to be praiseworthy within the climate “community”.

Instead, the “community” has extended the fatwa. This is precisely the sort of action and attitude that can only engender and reinforce contempt for the “community” in the broader society.

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

Wikipedia says:

McCarthyism is the practice of making accusations of disloyalty, subversion, or treason without proper regard for evidence. It also means “the practice of making unfair allegations or using unfair investigative techniques, especially in order to restrict dissent or political criticism.

This sort of witch hunt for the imagined sin of being affiliated with a climate skeptics group is about as anti-science (to use the language of our detractors) as you can get.

I keep waiting for somebody in science to have this Joseph N. Welch moment, standing  up to climate bullies:

Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?

Nothing will change in the rarefied air of climate debate unless people are allowed to speak their minds in science without such pressure. The next time somebody tells you that “science is pure”, show them this.

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

ADDED: Before this event became known I had planned this post for later today, it seems better suited and relevant to include it here – Anthony

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

An early rational voice in climate skepticism, Bengtsson in 1990: ‘one cannot oversell the greenhouse effect’

Guest essay by Marcel Crok

Lennart Bengtsson recently joined the Academic Council of the GWPF. This generated quite some attention on blogs and in the media. I interviewed him, but also Hans von Storch on Klimazwiebel, Axel Bojanowski had a story in Der Spiegel (English version), and there was an article in the Basler Zeitung.

Bengtsson emphasized that he has always been a “sceptic”. In the interview with me he said:

I have always been sort of a climate sceptic. I do not consider this in any way as negative but in fact as a natural attitude for a scientist. I have never been overly worried to express my opinion and have not really changed my opinion or attitude to science.

We all know that in climate discussions climate scientists are quick to say “we are all sceptics” so such a remark says little about Bengtsson’s exact viewpoints. The renowned Dutch science writer Simon Rozendaal then sent me a copy of his interview with Bengtsson published on 27 October 1990 (!) in the Dutch weekly Elsevier (for which Rozendaal still works as a science writer).

We can now confirm that Bengtsson was pretty “sceptic” in 1990. Here is the full translated Elsevier article:

A cool blanket of clouds

Climate expert Bengtsson puts the threat of the greenhouse effect in perspective

Next week, a large conference on the global climate will be held in Geneva. The most important topic of discussion: the greenhouse effect. Many hold the opinion that our planet is warming by the increase in carbon dioxide and that a climate disaster is looming. Maybe so, says Lennart Bengtsson, Europe’s most important climate scientist. Or maybe not. Bengtsson doesn’t actually know for sure. It could go either way.

Lennart Bengtsson is so far not daunted by the looming climate disaster. He frowns when looking at the tierische Ernst with which the rest of the world embraces the prediction that the planet warms due to the increase in gases like carbon dioxide (CO2). ‘It would become serious if the atmospheric CO2 concentration would decrease. Thanks to the greenhouse effect Earth is a habitable place. Were its concentration to decrease, then mean temperatures would plummet far below freezing. That really would be a catastrophe.’

The Sweed, who appears and talks like Max von Sydow, is director of the European Center for Medium Range Weather Forecast in Reading (United Kingdom), which supports eighteen European national weather centers like Dutch KNMI with computer models and simulations. Soon he will become director of the Max Planck institute in Hamburg and thereby will be in charge of Europe’s most important greenhouse effect computer model. ‘Until now the greenhouse effect research has concentrated in the United States, but Europe is advancing.’

There is something strange about the greenhouse effect. Many scientists babble and publish about it, but few really understand its ins and outs. Most of them treat assumptions as were they facts. Suppose that it would become two degrees warmer, how much higher would the Dutch dikes have to become? Or: suppose that we want to reduce CO2 emissions and still maintain economic growth for not so strong economies of Poland, Greece, and China, how much would the emissions of the wealthy Netherlands have to decrease? For the question whether the underlying assumptions are actually correct, one has to ask climate experts like Bengtsson.

He emphasizes that the greenhouse excitement is founded in computer simulations. And that computer generated models are not complete nonsense. ‘If for example such a model starts with a globally uniform temperature, then within a few months of simulation one would start to see the tropics warming and polar regions cooling. Remove the Amazon and after some time it reappears due to the torrential tropical rains. Such general characteristics of the global climate are part of the models.’

However, the models provide insufficient insight. ‘They are too coarse. While weather predictions nowadays have grid sizes of 100 by 100 kilometer, climate models work on a 500 by 500 km grid. In addition, models have problems with clouds. They are not able to predict what effect clouds have and they cannot distinguish between high and low clouds, yet we know that this differentiation has important consequences.’ Many other important aspects are lacking. Some of those cannot be incorporated simply because they are not well understood. ‘For a large part of the emitted carbon dioxide we do not know where it stays.’

FLUFFY TUFTS

Would there be no clouds, everything would be simple. ‘With a clear sky, increasing carbon dioxide or methane would lead to a reduction of heat radiation from the earth to the atmosphere. In addition, water vapor would amplify the so-called greenhouse effect. If temperatures increase, more water evaporates and water vapor is a powerful greenhouse gas.’

However, clouds do exist. It is these fluffy tufts that diminish much of the commotion surrounding the climate disaster. Clouds cool because they reflect sunlight. On the ground we notice this when we’re in a shadow. At the same time clouds warm because they prevent heat radiation from directly escaping to space: ground frost nearly always occurs under cloud free conditions. The simple question as to whether clouds cool or warm the Earth was until recently unanswered, and this says a lot about the current state of meteorology.

Among climate experts the opinion that clouds cool Earth is gaining ground, Bengtsson observes. ‘There are recent satellite observations, as reported in the scientific magazine Nature, showing that clouds reduce the greenhouse effect. In particular low level clouds are efficient cooling agents.’

Theoretically, the greenhouse effect could even cause a cooling rather than a warming of Earth. ‘The cooling effect of clouds is five times as strong as the temperature increase due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2.’ There is even an amplification of this feedback. Bengtsson: ‘If it gets warmer, clouds become whiter and thereby reflect more solar radiation.’

Such feedbacks are hardly part of the computer models that predict the warming, according to Bengtsson. ‘Almost no model is capable of dealing with the behavior of clouds. The models builders claim they do, but when we redo the calculations that turns out not to be true.’

There are other problematic issues. Were climate to really warm, snow and ice would have to melt. That would result in additional warming because white surfaces reflect more sunlight. ‘This additional warming is not present.’ Maybe the largest omission in knowledge about climate are the oceans.’ In most models it is assumed that the ocean is fifty meters deep, which is an average. But there are parts of the oceans that are several kilometers deep. Those would slow any potential warming. You could hide thousand years of warming in the ocean.’

The one small meteorological detail from the enormous amount of uncertainties, ambiguities and question marks that has become better understood is that an increase of CO2 and some other gases potentially has a warming effect. And that is what politics is focusing on right now. Bengtsson: ‘What happens in the Atlantic Ocean could have bigger consequences, but nevertheless all attention is focusing on the greenhouse effect.’

GREENHOUSE MAFIA

Bengtsson believes that climate experts should not pretend to be more knowledgeable than they really are. ‘In case of the greenhouse effect there is an interaction between media, politics and science. Every group pushes the other groups. Science is under pressure because everyone wants our advice. However, we cannot give the impression that a catastrophe is imminent. The greenhouse effect is a problem that is here to stay for hundreds of years. Climate experts should have the courage to state that we are not yet sure. What is wrong with making that statement clear and loudly?’

The excitement of the last weeks has moved everything into high gear. A United Nations committee (the IPCC) has released a report at the end of August which suggests that there is a broad scientific consensus about the existence of the greenhouse effect. This already has had political ramifications in many countries. For example, halfway October hundreds of Dutch politicians, experts, civil servants and industrialists have been discussing in Rotterdam themes from the 1960s like whether and how the Netherlands could lead the way (again). And early November there will be a global conference in Geneva about the global climate.

Bengtsson thinks that the IPCC has been particularly actuated for political reasons. ‘The IPCC prediction that with a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere the temperature on Earth would rise by two degrees should be taken with a grain of salt.’

Due to the lack of understanding a thermometer remains crucial. And it is not pointing in the direction of a doomsday. ‘The temperature over the Northern Hemisphere has decreased since about 1950. In some countries the eighties were very warm, but there are countries where this is not the case. On Greenland there is little to be seen of the greenhouse effect. It has been very cold during the last couple of years.’

‘If you talk to the greenhouse mafia about these observations, they provide some answers, but those are not real. There is no proper support for the claim that the greenhouse effect should already be visible. It is sometimes stated that the Southern Hemisphere is warming. But there are so few observational sites over there that it is very difficult to draw any definitive conclusions about the temperature in the Southern Hemisphere.’

Bengtsson is not the only climate expert who thinks that much of the excitement about the greenhouse effect is undue. Many of his colleagues have been rather uneasy about what happened after they opened Pandora’s box. They have become afraid, now that politicians, camera crews, pressure groups and environmental departments worldwide have thrown themselves at the climate disaster, to openly state that what they have declared may have been a bit premature.

Bengtsson: ‘Many of us feel rather uncomfortable with much of what has been claimed about the greenhouse effect. No one had been talking about it because temperatures had been slightly on the decline during the last 30 years. Only after Jim Hansen of NASA had put the issue back on the agenda after the warm summer of 1988 has it become part of the political agenda. In itself there is no problem with that. Looking hundreds of years ahead the greenhouse effect could become a serious problem. Some policies are obviously a clever thing to do: save energy, become less dependent on oil, those are good ideas. But one cannot oversell the greenhouse effect. There are many environmental problems that are much more urgent like that of the sulphur dioxide in Eastern Europe.’


Marcel Crok operates two websites, De staat van het klimaat (The State of the Climate), and Climate Dialog, which recently had an excellent discussion on the Transient Response of Climate Sensitivity. I recommend adding it to your bookmarks – Anthony

UPDATE2: David Rose sums it up succinctly with a reference to Monty Python –

 

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
spetzer86

Almost more of a exaggerated shunning activity. And yet we’re expected to believe that there’s “no pressure to conform” and there’s no way that all those scientists could be coerced into bleating the same chorus.

Mark Bofill

People who like to throw around accusations of conspiracy theory often seem to ignore this dynamic. Who needs a conspiracy? How messy and dangerous would that be, in this age of FOIA and hacked emails? Much simpler to establish a climate of fear and intimidation and let nature take its course.

gzk

It’s time for scientists, journalists and politicians to start talking about the future criminal charges that will be brought against those leading the AGW hoax. It needs to be put on the table.

Gary

To stop them, witch hunters need to be named and their threats exposed to the light of day. Secret threats and shunning have a chilling effect that can only be reversed by disinfecting exposure. It has to be real evidence, though, and not just accusation. Reasonable people know bullying when they see it, but they have to see it.

This is what is so disappointing about the situation climate science finds itself in.
Lennart Bengtsson could well be completely on board with the current climate concensus, but just by associating with GWPF he’s being ostracised. Awful behaviour from supposedly enlightened people.

motvikten

Bengtsson has publiced in Energy and the Environment. If you read the full article you will find that he sees climate change as a huge problem, and that he is in favor of fast breeders to solve the problem.
http://multi-science.metapress.com/content/aw065m7h58071411/fulltext.pdf?page=1
He is a meber of
http://www.kva.se/en/
http://www.kva.se/en/contact/Kontakt-sida/?personId=15
The energy committee is doing heavy opinion work to get new nuclear plants in Sweden.
They use climate change (low carbon) to motivate nuclear.

He sounds just like all of the old Bolsheviks who were so shocked and disappointed when Brother Stalin turned on them.
This is what the movement he has been part of has been all about since the beginning, but he willfully blinded himself to what was happening. Well, he finally got the wake-up call.

Keitho

Unbelievable!
Perhaps ultimately we will all be charged, tried and convicted for the historical crime of “denialism”. It has happened with other things that weren’t crimes when they were committed but have become so in a more “enlightened” age. The motivated liberal/left is very much on the march.

LewSkannen

It is outrageous that he is under this pressure but I do not agree with surrendering.

Reblogged this on CraigM350 and commented:
The true concensus in climate is omerta. Imagine if skeptics had hounded someone in such a disgraceful manner.
“I had not expecting such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc. I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.”

bobl

If I were he (and I’m not) I think I’d be inclined to stick to my guns and name’n’shame those so-called scientists that exerted the pressure by publishing their statements verbatim.

Unfortunately, this is typical of the climate-science community. Pillory those who disagree with you.

Oldseadog

I wonder how, or even if, the MSM will report this.

JLC

When any group of people behaves like this, it is a warning sign that there is something seriously wrong with the group. It is appalling but not surprising that Prof. Bengtsson has experienced this viciousness.
“Many of his colleagues have been rather uneasy about what happened after they opened Pandora’s box.”
Yes indeed. I’m sure a lot of scientists feel that way.

Walt The Physicist

gzk says:
May 14, 2014 at 6:02 am
I share your emotions; however, how would one implement criminally charging scientists? Science always had a share of charlatans and crooks in its midst. These fraudsters express their opinion and you either buy it or not, so no crime committed. However, these days “you” are represented by the science funding agencies – they make decision on your behalf to spend your moneys. And seemingly, the latest trend is that these agencies support fraudsters on overwhelmingly large scale. Perhaps there is a way to hold these agencies responsible and, particularly, the individuals who make decisions to fund fraudsters. Frequently these decisions are made in contrary to the other scientists who present clear evidences of mistake or fraud.

pokerguy

“will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety.”
I’ve been warning of possible violence in this increasingly lunatic atmosphere for a couple of years now. I can easily see some misguided crazy deciding to take a pot shot at a climate denier in order to “save the planet.”
It’s not just climate. The intolerance from the left, and the gradual erosion of our right to free speech becomes more shocking by the day.
Sorry. This will not end well.

Have we come to the end of the Age of Reason? In this brief talk (linked in the thread about videos for school kids) Sally Baliunas describes what happened to a physician who challenged the prevailing dogma that blamed witches and sorcerers for ‘extreme’ weather events during the Little Ice Age :

If, in our supposedly ‘enlightened’ age, an established scholar who expresses a little skepticism cannot stand up to ostracism from his colleagues, imagine how difficult it is for young graduates. When science degenerates to dogma, what is left? Welcome to the new Dark Age.
/Mr Lynn

richardscourtney

LewSkannen:
Your post at May 14, 2014 at 6:20 am says in total

It is outrageous that he is under this pressure but I do not agree with surrendering.

Please do not think so lightly of the effects of the “pressure”.
Bengtsson wrote of the pressure

If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety.

His concerns are genuine. Maintaining objective opposition to the AGW-scare requires considerable steadfastness and does have a toll including a toll on health.
AGW-scaremongers will gloat at Bengtsson “surrendering”. We need to provide him with support and understanding.
Richard

Why am I not surprised. Any form on non-approved thinking or speaking is now seized upon and pilloried savagely. The end of the Enlightment. Welcome to the Peoples Republic of Climate Science.

JustAnotherPoster

Global Warming / Climate Change/ Dirty weather will be an issue that will cause more damage to science and the establishment in the long run than anything. Absolutely Anything.
The trust me i’m a scientist meme will be shot by the behavior of climate scientists. They are doing science a massive disservice and need to take a real hard look at their behavior.

Coach Springer

That kind of behavior is the tip of the ice berg. What it is doing to real science is going on under the water, so to speak. But it is proof of the thing they say does not exist – scientific bias.

Reminds me of the early 1930’s in Germany.

Also read this 2013 article by Lennart Bengtsson
Lennart Bengtsson: Global climate change and its relevance for a global energy policy.
http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.ca/2013/03/lennart-bengtsson-global-climate-change.html

BFL

motvikten says:
May 14, 2014 at 6:13 am
Bengtsson has publiced in Energy and the Environment. If you read the full article you will find that he sees climate change as a huge problem,
———————————————————————————————————————————-
From the multi-science PDF given: “The balance of the evidence suggests that the burning of these substances is having a direct effect on global temperatures and thus, in turn, in changes to the global climate, the extent of which are difficult to predict.”
This statement hardly sounds like he considers climate change a “huge” problem.

Coach Springer

L. E. Joiner says:
May 14, 2014 at 6:38 am
Have we come to the end of the Age of Reason? In this brief talk (linked in the thread about videos for school kids) Sally Baliunas describes what happened to a physician who challenged the prevailing dogma that blamed witches and sorcerers for ‘extreme’ weather events during the Little Ice Age :
=====================================================
That video story of the Little Ice Age with the mild winters, severe winters, cold summers, summers with heat waves, floods, droughts and “unprecedented” extreme weather would be quite helpful for much needed perspective if reproduced with a little better delivery. That and it reminds me of a point that has been made on these pages before that extreme events may be more highly correlated with climate cooling.

George Lawson

It would be right and proper for Prof. Bengtsson to publish here all the statements made by the so called scientific community that have driven him to this decision. They need to be exposed. But if the prof. does not want to name names, he could publish without attribution, the perpetrators would then see their disgusting behaviour placed on record.

rogerknights

Editors must have been aware for a long time that this shunning was inline for them if they published contrarian material. This could account in part for the paucity of explicitly contrarian peer-reviewed material.

Kev-in-Uk

I’m with those who say ‘name and shame’ – or at least to ‘out’ the threats and the manner in which they were received/perceived. This type of treatment is intolerable and must be stopped.

rogerknights

PS: This pressure also partly accounts for the genuflections toward orthodoxy that implicitly contrarian authors make.

Don Easterbrook

Richard Feynman said it so well–all scientists are skeptics—it is important to doubt in order to test concepts and look in new directions.
Which, in effect says, if you’re not a skeptic, you’re not a scientist.

rogerknights

But this is hardly McCarthyism–no governmental inquisition is involved. It’s just groupthink-plus-PC-ism.

Ivan

So, we are supposed to sympathize with a coward incapable of living with the consequences of his personal choices?

In the distance I hear the tribal drums and the chant getting louder.
Andrew

Walt The Physicist

“When science degenerates to dogma, what is left? Welcome to the new Dark Age.”
I respectfully disagree. Science did not degenerate and no new dark age is coming. Science, especially applied science, is progressing as it did before. What we have though is seizing of science funding and, therefore, control by the government agencies. Prior to WWII most of the best science was done by scientists funded privately or by scientists who had a “day jobs” working in patent agencies, departments of commerce, navy, etc. After WWII science became “organized” and funding was taken over by governments. The scientific “societies” became extra powerful and the peer-reviews became politicized. The higher education also grew producing more and more “scientists” for this machine. (Like talent can be mass produced in these supersized XSUs). All as predicted by Leo Szilard – see in his book “The Voice of the Dolphins” a short story “The Mark Gable Foundation”. The good news is that in this strange environment there are few real scientists, and only few are needed for scientific progress anyways.

Pathway

The picture should be that of Stalin. He invented political correctness but with the Man of Steel the result was your execution. McCarthy ferreted out commies like Alger Hiss.

Jimbo

….I had not expecting such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc. ……

Told ya so! This is why even mildly sceptical Warmists keep producing Climastrological, pal reviewed garbage. There is too much money FUNDING at stake and the Great Global Warming Project is too big to fail. But it’s failing alright and the jig will be over sooner or later.
They can pressurize all they want, the truth can’t be pressured forever. It feels no pain, it does not require funding, it does not have a family, it does not care.

Latitude

oh yeah…..we’re really advanced
Shaman/witchdoctors made their claim to fame by promising to control the weather….

DayHay

rogerknights says:
May 14, 2014 at 7:07 am
But this is hardly McCarthyism–no governmental inquisition is involved. It’s just groupthink-plus-PC-ism.
Dear Roger, what do you think the chances of any skeptical (read that real) scientist is allowed to apply for grant money let alone get any from say the $1 billion Obama is offering? Do you truly think any of that money is available to those who do not toe the line? Me thinks you do not really have a grasp of the situation here. The grant money IS GOVERNMENT. But hey, they are not coming for you…….yet.

‘one cannot oversell the greenhouse effect’
This statement can be understood two contradictory ways:
a) It is possible to oversell the greenhouse effect, but one mustn’t do so. It is better to stay with the evidence.
b) Sell, Sell, Sell the greenhouse effect without limit. Caveat Emptor.

Jimbo

Who is Professor Lennart Bengtsson? A real ace. Michael Mann is a shrimp next to this pro. No wonder he had to be stopped.

Lennart Bengtsson
[T]he really important question is to know how much warmer it will be and how fast this is likely to happen as this determines a realistic and sensible cause of action. In spite of all research and modelling experimentation we are actually less sure what will happen than what might appear from all reassuring reports that dominates the media.
http://judithcurry.com/2013/05/13/lennart-bengtsson-on-global-climate-change/
http://klimazwiebel.blogspot.com/2013/03/lennart-bengtsson-global-climate-change.html#more
=========================
Professor Lennart Bengtsson
Research Interests:
Climate sensitivity studies, Energy balance
in present and future climates with emphasis on the hydrological cycle, extreme events with emphasis on tropical and extra-tropical cyclones, Natural climate variability and climate predictability.
http://www.met.reading.ac.uk/users/users/1788

Future generations will learn from episodes like this. This is what happens when authority takes over from genuine scientific enquiry – it becomes corrupted. It is now more akin to Lysenkoism.

dp

It would be most interesting to have names of the McCarthyites who have gutted the principles of scientific reason. Those names belong on a Wall of Shame. And no, this suggestion is not just more of the same. It is in support of freedom and openness vs the effort to contain and manage the scope of the conversation by the neo-McCarthyites.

Ralph Kramden

Come senators and congressmen please heed the call.
Don’t stand in the doorway, don’t block up the hall.
For he that gets hurt will be he who has stalled.
There’s a battle outside and it is raging.
It’ll soon shake your windows and rattle your walls.
For the times they are a changing. (Bob Dylan)

The situation that has been highlighted by the Lennart Bengtsson and GWPF is similar to that encountered by any person in the UK employed by a government department, or in the private or charity sector which depends largely on government funding in the 2010s. The recruitment procedure is sure to contain something like “We expect all staff and volunteers to share this commitment to Greenpeace Edict 94/42. Appointments are subject to acceptance by our HR Director, Dr J McCarthy.” Anyone who gets past this hurdle and the realises 94/42 is a fraud or inhumane will either keep quiet and handle the cognitive dissonance as best they can, or speak out and attract the wrath (real, simulated or orchestrated) of their colleagues.
UK state education is a particularly problematic area at the moment, because their are still some hardline warmists in a position of power in schools who will do their utmost to harass sceptics, despite the attempts by Gove to stop the bullying of sceptics. http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/04/08/Teachers-Acting-Illegally-Over-Climate-Change

richard

If temperatures increase, more water evaporates and water vapor is a powerful greenhouse gas.’
would the desert be hotter or colder with more moisture in the daytime?

EternalOptimist

I predict a film will be made c2070 ‘Professor Bengtsson’s list’

David Ramsay Steele

I wonder how much of the hostility will die down just because he has resigned from the GWPF. He has not yet publicly recanted the stated views on climate which led him to affiliate with the GWPF. So it could turn out that most of the bad things will continue to happen to him, but he will not have the satisfaction of having been true to his principles. In other words, much of the hostility may not have been directed at affiliation with GWPF per se, but with heretical views evidenced by affiliation with GWPF, and now the true believers have been alerted to these heretical views, they may not ease up on him (without a public recantation, confession of his appalling thoughtcrimes, and display of abasement before the high priests of “science”).
To describe this as “McCarthyism” is a bit unfair to Tail Gunner Joe. McCarthy had lists of names of people who were security risks because they were suspected of being controlled by Soviet espionage, and yet were allowed to remain in their sensitive government jobs. McCarthy didn’t go after people because of political opinions they had expressed; he went after authorities who had failed to investigate or prosecute in cases where government employees had been identified as security risks.

Philip

I would not compare this to McCarthy, it turns out that when the USSR collapsed and KGB records became public, he was right in many respects.
This behavior is much more like Mao’s Red Guards.

From: Three Days of the Condor

Turner: I’d like to go back to New York.
Joubert: You have not much future there. It will happen this way. You may be walking. Maybe the first sunny day of the spring. And a car will slow beside you, and a door will open, and someone you know, maybe even trust, will get out of the car. And he will smile, a becoming smile. But he will leave open the door of the car and offer to give you a lift.

This is a very ugly episode in science politics Lennart Bengtsson finds himself in. As much as he wants to turn back the clock and return to his past relationships, I think he will find he has not much future there.

Lars P.

Greenhouse Inquisition at work… too much money & interests invested in the new religion to let naive scientific skepticism free…

Steve Keohane

Stephen Rasey says: May 14, 2014 at 7:25 am But one cannot oversell the greenhouse effect.
I wondered if in translation a sense of ‘should not’ became “cannot’.