Climate McCarthyism: “Are you now or have you ever been a climate skeptic?”.
Hans 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
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 –
@RogerPielkeJr No one expects the Spanish Inquisition. But in climate science and policy, its successors are thriving.
— David Rose (@DavidRoseUK) May 14, 2014
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
John, re: your point that we need to know the specifics of the pressure applied to Dr. Bengtsson
No, we don’t need to know the details. He is the detail. He already said that the pressure came from pretty much everyone and in all ways: withdrawn co-authorship, etc. His entire professional life is in jeopardy with the association. What else do you need to know, because you won’t shame these people or get them to back off.
We know all we need to know the extent of the rot and the root of the problem. Ultimately, government funded science of such politicized topics IS the problem. We long ago left science behind, we can all agree. Politics is a vicious and indiscriminate beast and having been harassed by the IRS for the past 4 years because of my political affiliations, I will defend Bengtsson’s inclination to alert us to the problem but gracefully decline the role of sacrificial lamb.
Though it is somewhat off-topic I am glad to see people taking McCarthyism as a term to task.
“Joseph McCarthy may have been right about Communist and particularly Soviet infiltration into the American government, but if the Left had wanted a bogeyman, they could not have picked a creepier and more sinister bunch than Senator McCarthy and his assistants.”
Whittaker Chambers book “Witness” is one the greatest books of the 20th century, not only because of the tale it tells, and its utterly insightful analysis but also because Chambers was a damn good writer. And this review …
http://www.brothersjudd.com/index.cfm/fuseaction/reviews.detail/book_id/969/Witness.htm
… is the best I’ve seen, summing up its prowess as a great book on all levels, as well as laying the blame for “McCarthyism” exactly where it should rest:
“What was truly unfortunate about McCarthyism was not the fact of the Red Hunt itself, but that it was left to such an incompetent as Joe McCarthy. If, instead of circling the wagons to protect their own, responsible members of the Left had joined with the Right to root out men and women in government, academia, and the media who were actively trying to subvert democracy, the entire process might have been salutary, rather than turning into one of the more divisive episodes in our domestic political history. But the Left, as a general rule, which had been untroubled by FDR’s decision to imprison every American of Japanese descent on the West Coast during WWII, reacted viscerally to the idea of exposing and removing genuine agents of an enemy government from positions of power.
To a great, and unacknowledged, degree, this reaction was dictated by class animosity. For the bitter truth is that Communism, particularly in America, was an ethos of the upper classes and the intelligentsia. The middle classes, for obvious reasons, and the lower classes, for more complex reasons, never subscribed to the ideals of Communism. And so, when the time came to destroy the Fifth Column, the destruction was led by men like McCarthy and Nixon, men with the stink of the common on them, and opposed by those who, like Hiss, had gone to the best Eastern schools and moved in the best social circles …
Those seeking to understand the passions stirred up by the Hiss Case need look no farther than the condescending aside of Hiss to Nixon : “My college was Harvard, I understand yours was Whittier.” There, in a sentence, is expressed the contempt and animosity between classes which would soon turn a simple espionage case into the cause which separated a generation of Americans. So while it was common to blame Chambers and his supporters for McCarthyism, most of the blame should really fall upon the Anti-Anti-Communists, those who, though they did oppose communism, could not bear to see their peers brought down by commoners, no matter what crimes those peers may have committed in the putative name of those very commoners.”
/off-topic
thegriss, May 14 @ur momisugly 2:19pm;
….and hot on Connolley’s heals is none other than Sou from Botswana;
REPLY: “Sou” aka Miriam O’Brien of Mt. Beauty, VIC AU, my Internet stalker, can’t help herself. IMHO with her fixations about me and WUWT, she’s mentally off the rails, much like the new Godzilla movie. She’s a sad figure, who makes blog posts only for the purpose of denigration. – Anthony
rw says:
May 14, 2014 at 1:31 pm
I’m fascinated by all these plugs for Joseph McCarthy. Boy does this give the whole controversy a Tweedledee/Tweedledum air!
Substantial members of the Right like Whittaker Chambers..”
Whittaker Chambers was hardly “right”. He had been a member of the Communist Party himself.
As was pointed out earlier on this thread, “McCarthyism” gives an unfair rap to Senator Joe McCarthy. There’s a major difference between trying to root people out of federal employment- working for the government is not a “right”, and HUAC’s attack on communists in the private sector.
Looks like my comment ended up in the spam-bin, possibly due to link supplied. Never mind.
In reply to thegriss @ur momisugly 2:19pm; “I googled GWPF and on the first page is that piece of worthless human slime, Connelly”, Sou from Botswana (or where ever she’s from) is close on his heels.
– – – – – – – –
L. E. Joiner ,
Do we have a case where there are ~1% creators / leaders and ~99% supporters/ followers? It is a possible theory to consider.
What you call “miscreants” may be two groups. The first group may be the ~1% who are the intellectual leaders creating the observationally challenged theory of significant AGW from fossil fuel and the other group is the ~99% who support (for whatever reason) those leaders. Identify and publish the story about the ~1% leadership advocating the use “group pressure” by the ~99% and you will disperse the ~99% who are implementing the “world wide” “group pressure” in the climate science “community” on skeptical (aka independent) scientists like Bengtsson.
N’est ce pas?
John
Yet another false religion restricting freedom of speech.
What’s the modern equivalent of “Burn him! burn him! burn the Witch!”?
Devolution is accelerating, and technology seems to be adding thrust.
milodonharlani says:
May 14, 2014 at 2:42 pm
PS: From the annals of science rather than music, consider case in point Sir Richard Owen, who coined the term “dinosaur”. Great anatomist; rotten human being.
Thanks for clearing that up AW. Her fixation for you may be a ‘secret admiration’ towards you. Have you ever received a Valentines Day card from her?
/sarc.
Whether this saves Lennart Bengtsson the grief he fears is not clear. Winston Churchill’s words come to mind:
“You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war.”
– – – – – – – – – –
Alex,
Now, perhaps the climate science group supporting the observationally challenged theory of significant AGW from fossil fuels may put pressure on people like Bengtsson to accept that “Resistence is futile. You will be assimilated.***” But, some scientists do defiantly resist.
I still maintain that the excruciatingly detailed and fully contextual story of group pressure that explains how and why Bengtsson (and any other scientists) prima fascia did not resist is important for devising tactics, strategy and safeguards for scientists who may choose to begin resisting or to continue to resist.
I once again strongly encourage Bengtsson’s long time professional and personal associates to discuss with him my idea of disclosing the detailed and fully contextual story of the group pressure (world wide) that motivated his GWPF resignation and his concern for safety. I think it is crucial info.
So, Alex, we disagree in principle.
*** apologies to Gene Roddenberry’s brainchild ST-TNG.
John
Ivan whines: May 14, 2014 at 7:13 am. “So, we are supposed to sympathize with a coward incapable of living with the consequences of his personal choices?”
There is no WE. You are free to do as you like, and I am free to do as I like. While I have no idea who you are talking about, I sympathize entirely with this man described above whose employment is subject to political winds and now faces an ethical dilemma.
Let’s see YOUR courage.
So basically in 24 years nothing has changed.
One of the skeptical arguments that has been difficult to hold for a lack of evidence was the professional risk in taking a skeptical position publicly. Now the evidence is irrefutable, though it will be refuted in all manners of ways.
This should hit pretty hard as it truly uncovers the “hoax”, the collusion and the professional intolerance that is obviously far more common that people had ever suspected.
I can honestly say that I am surprised how candid his withdrawal was and I am sure he will continue to pay a professional price in the future. His accusers and so called colleagues should look long and hard in their mirrors and feel shame.
Alex has a point, that Dr. Bengtsson “is the detail.” More particularly, Dr. B gave us a pretty good hint where the pressure was coming from. However, I agree with John that the more sordid details the better. Let’s see the emails and phone transcripts from the defenders of the Climatist faith, and then let’s have an article in a major news magazine: “The Climate Inquisition: No Heretics Allowed.”
As for John’s hypothesis about leaders and followers (May 14, 2014 at 3:57 pm), I don’t know enough about the social structure of The Team and its acolytes to say. But it sounds plausible.
/Mr Lynn
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.”
I’m so sad AND disgusted by this. ‘WE’ bring knives to ‘their’ gunfight. ‘WE’ let ‘them’ pick the time of day and location, so the “sunlight” is in our eyes !
‘WE’ must beg, borrow, steal every penny possible and begin a national 60 second media campaign to promote concise current science and the FRAUD of the left of liberals. ‘WE’ must become militant NOW ! !
The best thing that Dr. Bengtsson could do right now, is release all the critical emails he has received
Say what you want about McCarthy’s methods but he was right about the communist infestation within our government. Its all in the NSA’s VENONA files.
By the way, how did the NSA manage to keep all of those people who worked on the VENONA files from talking? Seems like at least *one* worker would have said something.
David Ramsay: “I wonder how much of the hostility will die down just because he has resigned from the GWPF.
Without reiterating what I said at Bishop HIll and Climate etc., the key thing here is to realise this a boundary issue. Science is a community. That community draws (almost arbitrary) lines itself demarcating the legitimate “them” for the “us” … who are therefore deemed illegitimate. That boundary then means that no matter how qualified or experienced you are (e.g. a meteorologist running world’s most read blog) – the fact you are not part of the “in crowd”, means anything and everything you say is illegitimate.
What Lennart Bengtsson did, was to show that boundary can be crossed, that it is a glass boundary which only exists because people believe it exists. That not only legitimises groups like the GWPF, but by breaking down that barrier, it suggests that there is nothing intrinsically special about those in academia and that they don’t have any god given right to pontificate about climate and expect to be listened to.
So, academics need to re-enforce that boundary and show it still exists. Hence the vicious and vitriolic attacks.
What will happen now Like any gang member who “defects” to the other side, he has to be made an example of. I suspect he will continue to be metaphorically “beaten up”, made to publicly admit his “crime”, pushed down to the bottom of the social ranking and generally treated so appallingly that no other member of the “climate science gang” will dare consider doing the same.
@David Ramsay Steele
“…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”).”
This gives me an idea: If a well worded thoughtcrime confession was presented to the press and TV, carefully written, it would have an interesting effect. Should the devoted warmists accept a confession of thoughtcrime articulately and publicly made? By using the appropriate words, one could generate a completely compliant recantation of current and past thoughtcrimes that is a stinging rebuke of Big Brother. It doesn’t have to be facetious, it has to be cast in the correct mould.
It could conclude with, “The global temperature is rising. The thermometers are lying and those reading them should be charged with treason.”
It is ultimately a rational response and appeals to the sanity of the ordinary person. The alarmist harassers are proxies for the priests of the days of yore. Unfortunately for them, people are now capable of the independent investigation of truth.
People with power wield it. If they behave badly, take it away.
The irony is that this resignation will do so much more damage to the alarmists than if he’d stayed on the board. Climate scientists are already rallying around him.
http://www.thegwpf.org/dear-lennart-a-letter-in-support-of-professor-bengtsson/
This L’affaire Bengtsson reminds me of Matt Ridley’s lecture on “Science Heresy (October 31, 2011), at the Royal Society of Arts in Edinburgh. (In print at Bishop Hill, and via podcast at rsa.org, long excerpt at Jonova.)
His point: good science that does not fall prey to pseudoscience NEEDS its heretics to keep it honest, and not succumb to very human foible of confirmation bias.
L’affaire Bengtsson reminds us all of the enormous power of institutionalized science Orthodoxy, as well as the great courage required to oppose it.
If I don’t hear howls of protest from climate scientists I will hold ALL climate scientists in contempt. In fact any scientist who hears about this and is not disgusted deserves contempt, derision and rejection. Since when does the title climate scientist mean you implicitly are convinced of CAGW? With any luck, the decent climate scientists who are alarmed about GW will now be motivated to come forward and acknowledge the limits of their “PROFESSION”.
It took a man with guts to call out this new Religion, or should I say old worship of the Mother goddess.
With all the cons making this much money from carbon credits to fantastical views of Weather, supposedly from man made climate change. From bird blenders that don’t work to forcing people in an oil glut to pay mad prices for an abundance of power. Alberta lone without Saskatchewan has enough oil at present rates of use, to last at least 1000 years. Let alone the finds in the last few years World wide.
The world climate has changed many times, long before mankind arrived. What utter arrogance these would be little godlings of pseudo-science, pretending they can forecast weather into the future centuries. When even with satellites we can’t do more than 2 days at a time. Even than we get it wrong.
This type of Inquisition is not new in scientific circles. The two scientists who stated the continental drift theory where persecuted by there peer’s. There are many more tales of gifted people thrown over the cliff of conventionality, or fads. Lennart Bengtsson. Your doing us all a favour.