Lennart Bengtsson Blames U.S. Climate Scientists For McCarthy-Style Witch-Hunt
I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it. –Voltaire
A German physicist compared Bengtsson’s move to joining the Ku Klux Klan. — Der Tagesanzeiger, 7 May 2014
A leading climate scientist has resigned from the advisory board of a think-tank after being subjected to what he described as “McCarthy”-style pressure from fellow academics. Professor Lennart Bengtsson, a research fellow at the University of Reading, said the pressure was so intense that he would be unable to continue working and feared for his health and safety unless he stepped down from the Global Warming Policy Foundation’s academic advisory council. He said the pressure had mainly come from climate scientists in the US, including one employed by the US government who threatened to withdraw as co-author of a forthcoming paper because of his link with the foundation. –Ben Webster, The Times, 15 May 2014
Science regresses if it becomes intolerant of criticism. At the beginning of her reign, Queen Elizabeth I of England spoke words of tolerance in an age of religious strife, declaring that she had no intention of making windows into men’s souls. Unlike religion, science is not a matter of the heart or of belief. It exists only in what can be demonstrated. In their persecution of an aged colleague who stepped out of line and their call for scientists to be subject to a faith test, 21st-century climate scientists have shown less tolerance than a 16th-century monarch. There is something rotten in the state of climate science. –Rupert Darwall, National Review Online, 15 May 2014
I received your letter with shock, dismay and huge sympathy. The pressure on you from the climate community simply confirms the worst aspects of politicized science. I have been reprimanded myself for opposing the climate bandwaggon, with its blind dedication to political ambitions; it needs to be exposed, globally. Thanks for showing so much courage. Let´s hope there are more honest brokers in the climate world than are apparent today. —Professor David G. Gee, Uppsala University, 15 May 2014
A globally-renowned climate scientist has been forced to step down from a think-tank after he was subjected to ‘McCarthy’-style pressure from scientists around the world. Professor Lennart Bengtsson, 79, a leading academic from the University of Reading, left the high-profile Global Warming Policy Foundation as a result of the threats, which he described as ‘virtually unbearable’. Dr Benny Peiser, the director of GWPF told Mail Online: ‘There has been a complete outpouring of disbelief and anger about this development. It’s clearly a growing concern among interested observers how the intolerance within the climate science community is undermining what scientists are saying. This is a major scandal and will backfire if the science community don’t come out in support of him.’ –Wills Robinson, Daily Mail, 15 May 2014
The complex and only partially understood relationship between greenhouse gases and global warming leads to a political dilemma. We do not know when to expect a warming of 2 degrees Celsius. The IPCC assumes that the earth will warm up by 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celcius in response to a doubling of CO2 concentration. These high values of climate sensitivity, however, are not supported by observations. In other words: global warming has not been a serious problem so far if we rely on observations. It is only a problem when we refer to climate simulations by computer models. There is no alternative to such computer simulations if one wants to predict future developments. However, since there is no way to validate them, the forecasts are more a matter of faith than a fact. –Lennart Bengtsson, Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 14 April 2014
I deeply regret that any scientist, particularly such a distinguished scientist as Bengsston, has had to put up with these attacks. This past week, we have seen numerous important and enlightening statements made by Bengtsson about the state of climate science and policy, and science and society is richer for this. We have also seen a disgraceful display of Climate McCarthyism by climate scientists, which has the potential to do as much harm to climate science as did the Climategate emails. And we have seen the GWPF handle this situation with maturity and dignity. –Judith Curry, Climate Etc, 14 May 2014
There is something odd about the global warming debate — or the climate change debate, as we are now expected to call it, since global warming has for the time being come to a halt. I have never shied away from controversy, nor — for example, as Chancellor — worried about being unpopular if I believed that what I was saying and doing was in the public interest. But I have never in my life experienced the extremes of personal hostility, vituperation and vilification which I — along with other dissenters, of course — have received for my views on global warming and global warming policies. –Nigel Lawson, Standpoint Magazine May 2014
There is something odd about the global warming debate…
This is true.
Find a new label
Joseph McCarthy was a Patriot and very correct about Communist infiltration in the State Department.
Good that this is getting some press. The global warming cult was ecstatic about it, but the show isn’t over yet.
It is time for professional scientists and engineers to make this a front page issue. Because any of them could be the next guilty witch.
Voltaire himself never made the statement so often misattributed to him. An English writer, Evelyn Beatrice Hall (1868 to 1956), under the pseudonym S.G. Tallentyre, coined that phrase in her biography, “The Friends of Voltaire” (1906), to sum up the French philosphe’s attitude toward freedom of speech.
Professor Lennart Bengtsson is more like Elia Kazan after Kazan’s testimony, than being harmed by McCarthy.
Richard M. Nixon followed the Joseph McCarthy band wagon too, and was able to launch a very successful political career from that foundation.
The times article is by subscription. Who is the referenced ?scientist employed by the US government
The times article is by subscription. Who is the reerenced ?scientist employed by the US government?
JimS says:
May 15, 2014 at 8:42 am
Nixon preceded McCarthy & was an actually effective anti-Communist. McCarthy was not.
There is something odd about the global warming debate…
What debate? I keep hearing “the debate is over!” but I must have missed it
I’m trying to have sympathy for Professor Bengtsson, but so far have not been able to work up much. He’s been a prominent scientist for years, and at the age of 79 I would expect him to be much more resistant to this kind of pressure than someone just starting out. Did he ever really believe engaging with the GWPF had scientific value? If so he should use his prestige to face down the jackals and stick to what has value. If not, what was his motivation in the first place?
If someone of his distinguished stature runs away because people say nasty things and threaten to withdraw as co-authors, what kind of example does that set for majority of researchers more vulnerable than Bengtsson? What does it say to the wider community of scientists?
Intolerance, censorship and repression are coming; the advance scouts are here already. People genuinely committed to the integrity of their professions had best just get used to that fact and know what to expect. The consensus mob will not throw you a party if you deviate from the ordained doctrine or consort with declared heretics (well not the kind of party where you drink champagne and eat cake anyway).
Why waste sympathy on someone unwilling to take and make a stand? Instead lend some tangible support to Mark Steyn, who is taking point against the Carbon Cult. It’s a shame it takes a Canadian to remind us what kind of country the US used to be.
Is the USA the dominant source of these stealthy agent-provocateur type of intimidating tactics on independently skeptical climate focused scientists like Bengtsson?
Well, it certainly is a major source.
As a US citizen, I think this is an appalling state of affairs. Resistance to it isn’t futile.
A major part of the appalling situation started with Hansen in the 1980s establishing a weird cargo-climate-cult within a major US government scientific institution where he worked. Hansen is gone from that institution now but his mythical cargo cult legacy lives on there with its lingering denizens that were involved in RC.
John
@ Brad:
Gavin Schmidt?
From http://www.nationalreview.com/article/378011/science-mccarthyism-rupert-darwall :
“Groups perceived to be acting in bad faith should not be surprised that they are toxic within the science community,” Schmidt tweeted. “Changing that requires that they not act in bad faith and not be seen to be acting in bad faith.”
He’s getting awfully close to the truth there. AGW is a faith.
I always seem to mess up links. You can support Mark Steyn here:
!^%^%@! 3rd try. The link for Mark Steyn is here:
http://www.steynonline.com/6159/stick-it-to-the-mann-and-win-one-for-free-speech
Oregon State University knows all about academic freedom, as it applies to climate science: there isn’t any.
Academics who have been hung, shot and burned (metaphorically speaking) include Taylor, Drapela, and Fulks.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/06/11/climate-skeptic-instructor-fired-from-oregon-state-university/
竴
Wow – we now get nutters defending McCarthy – didn’t see that coming ;(
Tanks says:
May 15, 2014 at 8:29 am
Find a new label
Joseph McCarthy was a Patriot and very correct about Communist infiltration in the State Department.
Actually, I think the labelling is quite apropos. McCarthy was correct that there was communist infiltration in our government. He started out on a worthwhile mission, but let it go to his head, and became obsessed, reaching the incorrect conclusion that any and all tactics were acceptable in pursuit of a worthwhile goal, even if it created significant collateral damage.
In almost the exact same way, many climate scientists were right to observe that we are generating a lot of greenhouse gases, and these have the potential of affecting climate. It behooves us to study this carefully to determine, what, if any responses are required. Unfortunately, the good work of many scientists was subverted by people like Gore, who decided to use it for their own agenda. Some climate scientists have been dupes of the agenda, contributing to the unfortunate propaganda, while many are simply working to improve the science. Those who are pushing the scare=mongering are very analogous to McCarthy, working on something that deserves study, but carrying it to an absurd extreme, to the detriment of the world.
Sorry, the italic was supposed to be closed
“Find a new label
Joseph McCarthy was a Patriot and very correct about Communist infiltration in the State Department.”
Unfortunately, Tailgunner Joe was also a creep, a bully and an incompetent. The great tragedy of “McCarthyism” is that what should have salutary exercise in political hygiene had to be left to such a bungler, and became an issue that divided Americans to this day. The blame for this lays squarely on the shoulders of the “responsible” Left of that time, who though they opposed communism, could not bear to see their fellow elites, educated at the best Ivy League schools, brought down by commoners like McCarthy and Nixon. For the best account of this, read Whittaker Chambers’ Witness – one the best, and best-written books of 20th century.
The names of these new [snip] climatologists need to be posted here in print for all the world to see. They cannot be allowed to hide in the shadow of anonymity. They need to be identified and challenged for their spineless abhorrent.behavior.
‘ unless he stepped down from the Global Warming Policy Foundation’s {GWPF} academic advisory council.’
I would just like to highlight
‘The use of factually inaccurate material without a legitimate basis in science is an abuse of the foundation’s [GWPF] charitable status, which is all the more reprehensible because the public is more trusting of pronouncements made by charities’
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/lord-lawsons-climatechange-think-tank-risks-being-dismantled-after-complaint-it-persistently-misled-public-8659314.html
T-Bird says:
May 15, 2014 at 9:07 am
Correct, IMO. Joe made it easy for the Eastern Establishment elites to give anti-Communism a bad name, tarring all patriots with his failings. Today we still have Democrat members of Congress who style themselves “anti-anti-Communist” since “pro-Communist” remains a harder sell. But maybe becoming less so.
Sorry, my thoughts ran ahead of my pathetic typing. That sentence should read…
What should HAVE BEEN A salutary exercise in political hygiene …
There can be legal consequences for conspiring to intimidate such that a person resigns from an association. In the US, that is a federal crime.
http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/05/prosecuting-those-who-force-scientist.html
Roger Sowell says:
May 15, 2014 at 9:14 am
IMO, the CACA Mafia should be RICOed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racketeer_Influenced_and_Corrupt_Organizations_Act
Here is a link to a full article by Bengtsson in Energy & Environment.
http://www.issibern.ch/~bengtsson/pdf/global_energy_problem.pdf
In 7:
“This combined with the need to raise energy production is expected to increase the concentration of carbon dioxide to approach a value twice that of the pre-industrial time towards the middle of the century. Such a high value is likely to give rise to irreversible changes in the climate of the Earth.
It seems that two major actions are needed and should be implemented with highest priority. These are carbon dioxide sequestration and increased investment in nuclear power, preferably using fast breeder reactors”
Spiegel Online: Climate scientists Bengtsson : “I was afraid for my health and safety”
BREAKING: THE CLIMATE MAFIA STRIKES
Ex-Director of Top Global Warming Center Compares Warmunism to McCarthyism FrontPage
Here’s a new low.
William ‘Wikipedia’ Connelley Displays His True Class, Labels Distinguished Scientist Lennart Bengtsson “A Crybaby”
See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2014/05/15/william-wikipedia-connelley-displays-his-true-class-labels-distinguished-scientist-lennart-bengtsson-a-crybaby/
excerpt:
Naturally, we do not want the king of climate science revisionism to get the feeling that he himself is being censored, and so I’ve decided to upgrade his comment to a post as a gesture of good will:
…
The Alarmists gone from bad to worse…. changing (excuse me, “correcting”) measured data was bad enoung, but now the Alarmist-illness must have reached it’s high-fever level, that’s worse than bad….
The absolute value of the latitudes at which these storms reach their maximum intensity seems to be increasing over time, in most places,” says Kerry Emanuel, an MIT professor and co-author of the new paper. “The trend is statistically significant at a pretty high level.”Tropical cyclone intensity shifting poleward, Kerry Emanuel MIT professor in new paper
Always thought MIT students to MIT professors had basic knowledge in subject Theories of Science My mistake I presume 😛
Btw. the professor forgotten that Facts always wins over Fiction and that reality-check is critical for every study….
McCarthism in the air? Maybe but can also be incompetent scholars trying to “resque” their money-funds…..
Some seems to belive that political opinion of the day is all it takes to be a “good scholar”….
At this point, the entire Democratic Party should be RICO’ed. (Sorry hit the button too soon on the above.)
“Climate Change” Politics now similar to the Holocaust.
The World Is Full of Holocaust Deniers
i.e., 52% TV, 13% Internet, 10% Newspapers.
People should fear the effects of a growing intellectual tyranny far more than any effects from CO2.
“Unlike religion, science is not a matter of the heart or of belief. It exists only in what can be demonstrated. In their persecution of an aged colleague who stepped out of line and their call for scientists to be subject to a faith test, 21st-century climate scientists have shown less tolerance than a 16th-century monarch.”
What “can be demonstrated” is that progressive scientists use science and environmentalist platitudes to undo the work of the real scientists, the engineers and inventors, and to impoverish people.
What “can be demonstrated” is that “scientists” busy themselves in imagining carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane molecules out of place from human activity, claiming great precision, and estimating “risk.” They use sciency language to transmit wild fears to people who do not know any better. For the even more young and credulous, they use a “Mr Yuck” equivalent for labeling agriculture and energy as “dirty,” and “polluting.” Everything is “toxic.” This induces a response that is emotional, and takes advantage of those who have not developed any critical thinking ability.
I do not know if this man was going to be a real asset to GWPF or not. It may be an eye opener for him to experience the true colors of the circles he may actually have usually felt fairly comfortable with. What GWPF needs to do is recruit experts who understand the Smart meter market and the goals for installing them on almost all individual homes by 2020. Grid instabilities and expense introduced by renewables, along with shutting down coal plants, will appear to “require” rationing. And this is what I would like to be protected from, and contribute to stopping. Thanks to CFACT and GWPF and WUWT for anything you can do.
“A German physicist compared Bengtsson’s move to joining the Ku Klux Klan”
Yet another coward amongst the climate”scientists”! It is a pity he wasn’t named!
Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7 says:
May 15, 2014 at 9:00 am
I’m in agreement, I’d like to see a bit more pluck, bravery and resolve from Bengtsson. His retreating letter has made for some good press though, possibly contributing more than he might have with GWPF.
The Other Phil says:
May 15, 2014 at 9:05 am
Nicely reasoned and worded re. McCarthy comparison.
Climate Science: No Dissent Allowed
Pat Michaels & Chip Knappenberger, Cato Institute
Tanks says:
May 15, 2014 at 8:29 am
1+
Exactly.
It’s a typical liberal media technique, manufacture a back handed insult to conservatives for what is typical leftist behavior. “Greenshirt Stalinism” would be more appropriate and more correctly politically assigned in regard to AGW consensus activity.
Albert the Alligator (in the Pogo comic strip) once remarked,
“I may not understand what you say, but I’ll defend to your death my right to deny it.”
I agree with Roger.
Release the lawyers and lets bring this criminal liability to the forefront and identify the oppressors.
I could only imagine what would be disclosed via the discovery process.
Enough is enough with the bullying, period.
Nobody is above the law!
Time to relase the emails and names of the prime offenders. Also time to call call out alarmist fascism. The government-funded US harasser needs a visit to a congressional witness chair.
Shawn in High River says:(May 15, 2014 at 8:55 am)
There is something odd about the global warming debate… What debate? I keep hearing “the debate is over!” but I must have missed it.
I did too! Perhaps as part of the publicity that a few outlying journalists are giving to this disgraceful turn of events, a clear question could be asked as to why the world of climate “science” never seems to want to debate either their science or their policy (other than amongst themselves).
“Witch hunt” forces top scientist to quit climate sceptic think-tank ClickGreen
Dr. Lennart Bengtsson in end conformed and resigned, this isn’t the stuff of skeptic “heroes”.
It’s another spat among liberals in determining their extreme outlooks. Trotsky or Stalin? Seems like a false choice doesn’t it?
All the faux “outrage” from Dr. Curry is laughable, have they been living on ice-sheets the past 30+ years? This is routine liberal political correctness against those perceived to be or far worse those have gone soft in left-wing circles. Just google the Christopher Hitchens obituaries to see how venomous left-wing culture is to those who “turn” in the slightest. Of course she’s “shocked”?? LOL
So we have watch Dr. Bengtsson and Dr. Curry do their political culture limbo dance. How far can I go without giving up the political I.D. and motivations of why the climate goons are attacking me or in this case him? If they did concede the political I.D. of the AGW movement then a brick really would go through the window and I would truly respect them. Until then are essentially phonies. “McCarthyism”?? What a clueless joke but really just another bone thrown in the prattle of dealing with their left-wing peers. Talk about a coded word in leftist culture.
Alarmists have done much more damage to their cause by this behaviour, than would have been caused by Bengtsson remaining in GWPF.
After all, very few people would have known who he was, what the GWPF is, and the fact he had joined.
And the Luddites win another round.
blackadderthe4th linked to a blurb on paid activist Bob Ward’s “formal” complaint publicity stunt about “factually inaccurate materials” possibly leading to the complete dissolution of the GWPF, which merely includes four nitpicking technicalities, the biggest whopper being:
“3. In a debate with Professor Kevin Anderson of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, Lawson told Radio 4: “What is interesting is that in the second half of the 20th Century, when there were huge increases in carbon emissions, far from there being a greater increase in sea level, the official figures show that, if anything, there was a slightly smaller increase in sea level in the second half of the 20 Century than in the first”.
Ward says the statement is contrary to the most up-to-date results of scientific research. A group of leading researchers on sea level rise clearly demonstrated in 2009 that there was a bigger rise in sea level after 1950 than before it.”
What Bob and all mainstream climate alarm promoters call “sea level” is *not* even sea level in the normal way that science labels things, since the adjustments that alone are responsible for every last plot that up-curves from a linear trend has had “adjustments” added to it to move it *away* from sea level on the ground to a new merely *virtual* level. This is pure scientific fraud to do this, to label a graph “sea level” which is a virtual construct. And pointing to these fraudulent papers does not change the fact that a simple average of tide gauges, as was included in the latest Church & White update of 2011 is a pencil straight line, extracted as black, here, with trend line added:
http://i51.tinypic.com/28tkoix.jpg
Obviously the very most relevant “sea level” in the climate debate is sea level itself, on the coasts.
A slight deceleration has also been reported, so it’s not like the GWPF claim lacks “a legitimate basis in science” as is falsely claimed in the smear piece:
Reference: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818113002397
Abstract: “It is found that the GMSL rises with the rate of 3.2 ± 0.4 mm/yr during 1993–2003 and started decelerating since 2004 to a rate of 1.8 ± 0.9 mm/yr in 2012.”
Is Bob Ward exposing lies, or telling them?
-=NikFromNYC=-, Ph.D. in carbon chemistry (Columbia/Harvard)
DrJohnGalen lamented: “There is something odd about the global warming debate… What debate? I keep hearing “the debate is over!” but I must have missed it.”
There was a formal debate after all. The oldest and most prestigious debating society of the Oxford Union in 2010 accepted “That this House would put economic growth before combating climate change” by 135 votes to 110.
– – – – – – – – – – –
DrJohnGalan & Shawn in High River,
Here are a couple of my Tweets. They support your comments about there being no debate by supporters of the observationally challenged theory of CAGW.
I hope you enjoy them as much as I enjoyed Tweeting them.
John
Roger Sowell says:
May 15, 2014 at 9:14 am
Bengtsson is a Swedish citizen currently holding a position at University of Reading in the UK, after retiring from other positions in Europe. GWPF is headquartered in the UK. It seems to me authority for any criminal charges arising out of this would have to reside in the UK; I don’t see how US law would apply. But then again, I don’t follow Justice Roberts’ “let’s just pretend it’s a tax” reasoning in the ACA decision, so what do I know?
I suppose Bengtsson could always appeal to the UN, which would make for at least a few minutes of amusement.
Evelyn Beatrice Hall (1868 – June 1956),[1][2] who wrote under the pseudonym S.G. Tallentyre, was an English writer best known for her biography of Voltaire entitled The Friends of Voltaire, which she completed in 1906.
In her biography on Voltaire, Hall wrote the phrase: “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” (which is often misattributed to Voltaire himself) as an illustration of Voltaire’s beliefs.[3] Hall’s quotation is often cited to describe the principle of freedom of speech.
We could use better metaphors, “McCarthyism” is insulting and bogus on the face of it. That’s addressed on the thread above. As for “Mafia”;
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/05/breaking-the-climate-mafia-strikes.php
The Mafia is fairly apolitical and monetary driven, there is some of that in Greenshirt circles but the core of it is all political all the time. It’s ideological and the false metaphors (free-speech, McCarthyism, academic freedom) that Dr. Bengtsson and Dr. Curry use distract from that. This is about left-wing authority and tribal enforcement but they gutlessly maintain the pretense doesn’t exist by babbling “McCarthyism” etc.
Do they burn images of
Saints, I mean Marx in their hands at consensus climate meetings and professional societies?? Prick each members fingers at initiation?Not the best metaphor either.
Climatistas is closer to the mark, dedicated left-wing consensus with their special focus on carbon regulation and authority dressed as “science”.
I do not respect people that publically change their minds and attitudes when they are 79 and way past retirement age and are all “distinguished” thanks to their active participation in the system, belonging to and leading “scientific” societies, and publishing in the “Nature”, “Scientific Americans”, “Sience”, PRL etc. It is too late! You could have made difference or refuse participating when you were 30. That would’ve made difference. Oh… wait, then you wouldn’t enjoy your tenures, high salaries and “distinguishenness”. I am conscientious objector. I am active in my realm of physics, but I do not belong to any scientific society, do not publish in “Nature” and such, and, boy, it does hurt my promotions and salary. I wish Randy Schekman would never publish in Nature, Cell and Science, and I believe Lennart Bengtsson took objector’s position much too late.
The Other Phil:
I like your post, I think it has the best portrayal of McCarthyism I’ve read here; but disagree with the following w/r/t the supposed “science” of CAGW:
“Unfortunately, the good work of many scientists was subverted by people like Gore, who decided to use it for their own agenda”
This implies, I think, that many climate scientists started out wanting to discover the truth, whatever the consequences, and their unbiased scientific study was subsequently “kidnapped’ by political forces and people like Gore. Look at the following from the IPCC wiki page, with the thought in mind that the IPCC was established in 1988, over a quarter of a century ago:
“…The IPCC produces reports that support the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which is the main international treaty on climate change.[5][6] The ultimate objective of the UNFCCC is to “stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic [i.e., human-induced] interference with the climate system”.[5] IPCC reports cover “the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.”[6]
The IPCC was never interested in finding out the truth, or doing unbiased scientific study. Its very existence depends on CAGW being a reality. It was a scientific joke from it very inception –never interested in an unbiased search for truth.
If you mean that there were many climate scientists involed in man-made CO2 research working over a quarter of a century ago that were really,truly interested in the truth, and were subsequently hijacked by the Al Gores of the world, o.k, but I doubt it’s a very long list of names. As far as I can tell, most or all of them started out with the premise that CAGW was a reality ,and a few very brave souls have subsequently decided that the truth was more important to them than their life’s circumstances, reputations, etc – good for them. But, as far as I can tell, this whole CAGW movement was never “scientific” , it was political from the very start. I only got really interested in CAGW a few years ago so I’m willimg to be educated if I am wrong here.
blackadderthe4th says:
May 15, 2014 at 9:08 am
Thank you for the link to the article in the Independent about the complaint lodged against GWPF. At least the article makes clear the complainant is none other that Bob Ward, A.K.A. “rat snake Bob”, who probably also wrote the article and fed it to the putative author Tom Bawden.
Yes indeed, just about every regulatory body on the planet has a defined procedure responding to formal complaints, and official spokespersons will invariably respond with verbiage like “we are taking this complaint into consideration and will have a formal response in due course”. And in most cases, there is absolutely no penalty for people who file bogus complaints.
I could file a formal complaint against you with the UN Human Rights commission (I think Sudan is the current rotating chair, which should assure everyone of a fair and just response), and they would probably say the same thing. And then I could get a friendly journalist to write a piece about how you risk imprisonment as a Human Rights Criminal if the commission upholds the charges, together with a bunch of comments by me that your responses are “totally bogus”. And voilà! you are as good as convicted. Better start looking for asylum now.
Gavin’s faith-based gatekeeping for climate science in his response to Bengsston’s resignation under pressure from the GWPF should be an eye opener for those whose argument against the existence of a conspiracy of AGW proponents is in the shear number of proponents there are. This evidences only their part in it.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/378011/science-mccarthyism-rupert-darwall :
I agree with a few responders that Bengsston should have realized how courageous his change in direction would be in face of the climate change consortium. Why resign? You won’t be welcomed back. You won’t be asked to co-author anything. Having made the step, there is no backing out. You have retired yourself. I suppose at 79 you may have a point about your health not being to take the pressure. However, I think even your health will not be improved by backing out. You are marked.
Let me guess how many of the dyed in the wool so-called 97% will step forward and abhor this thuggish treatment of Bengsston. None! They didn’t do so in other similar cases involving skeptics or in pro AGW nutters antics and slime-ballings that even hurt their cause. Maybe Andy Revkin will pop up on this as the only one who has a big enough conscience in these affairs. I hope someone outs the fearful and cowardly US government scientist that dove for cover.
I wonder how long it is before we begin seeing leaked court transcripts from messy divorce proceedings involving climate skeptics. Or, how about marital infidelity investigations prompted by tips from ‘anonymous’ sources (pick whatever government agency you like, but my bet would be on a source from the EP…oops, better not speculate)? Did any of you skeptics propose, at the age of eight, to marry the seven year old neighbor girl (or boy) and then, twenty years later, not follow through on that solemn commitment? Or, as a teenager, tie the family dog to the roof of a car?
@ Frodo ; @ The Other Phil
The problem that we, freedom lovers, have with McCarty is that the methods he used against intellectual and ideological opponents were oppressive and unlawful. It doesn’t matter what were his motivations, He acted similar to comrade Stalin and fuhrer Hitler. Our constitution, love to freedom and democracy prevented him from becoming one of the world tyrants.
Tom J says:
May 15, 2014 at 11:15 am
IRS.
‘Nuff said.
“Groups perceived to be acting in bad faith should not be surprised that they are toxic within the science community,” Schmidt tweeted. “Changing that requires that they not act in bad faith and not be seen to be acting in bad faith.”
There is a very important practical lesson about the importance of studying some philosophy in Schmidt’s comment. What Schmidt means is that the GWPF does not engage in discussion of “climate change,” or whatever it is called today, for the right reasons. The GWPF shows bad faith because they do not share Schmidt’s sincere wish to preserve consensus science as it exists today. This view of motivation is widely held among naive Freshman and Sophomores who are high on their sincerity. They tend to be very suspicious of others who do not show complete appreciation for sincerity. No later than the end of the sophomore year, a good program of philosophy will have shown them that their concept of “sincerity” is hopelessly confused and has no place in argument or negotiation among mature thinkers. Of course, exceptions are made for students who insist on dedicating their lives to the works of Jean Paul Sartre, Karl Marx, V. I. Lenin, or Saul Alinsky.
Students who cannot be disabused of their notion of sincerity prove to be the most rancorous in debate, most hurt when criticized, and least able to trust the motivations of their critics.
For all his accomplishments, Schmidt’s words reveal an individual who failed to make one important step into intellectual maturity.
John Cook and University of Queensland are attempting to stop Brandon Shollenberger from releasing data that Cook and Nuccitelli claim already been released.
https://hiizuru.wordpress.com/2014/05/15/my-hundredth-post-cant-be-shown/
{all bold emphasis mine – JW}
– – – – – – – – – – –
Does anyone think Professor Lennart Bengtsson’s explicit fundamental rejections (in bold above) of the IPCC process and purpose wasn’t a major reason there were weeks of “world wide” “community” “group pressure” applied against his association with the GWPF?
WOW. Bengtsson, as a single respected climate scientist, took on a complete intellectual rejection of the IPCC and of its observationally challenged theory of substantial AGW from fossil fuel.
For that, this guy should be emulated.
John
Not good for freedom folks! From a few hours ago…….
http://www.cnet.com/news/fcc-opens-controversial-net-neutrality-proposal-up-for-debate/
“Walt The Physicist says:
@ Frodo ; @ The Other Phil
The problem that we, freedom lovers, have with McCarty is that the methods he used against intellectual and ideological opponents were oppressive and unlawful. It doesn’t matter what were his motivations, He acted similar to comrade Stalin and fuhrer Hitler. Our constitution, love to freedom and democracy prevented him from becoming one of the world tyrants.”
Walt, if you reread Phils’s post, I think we basically agree with you (Phil correct me if I am wrong)
Phil said:
“Actually, I think the labelling is quite apropos. McCarthy was correct that there was communist infiltration in our government. He started out on a worthwhile mission, but let it go to his head, and became obsessed, reaching the incorrect conclusion that any and all tactics were acceptable in pursuit of a worthwhile goal, even if it created significant collateral damage.”
I think we are all in violent agreement here.
As far as Mr. Bengtsson is concerned:
I don’t care if he was 79 years old – if I am alive when I am that age I plan on being in an easy chair sipping a tasty brewski myself – what he did – going against all his years of previous work and against all his former ‘buds – took some Godzilla-sized stones. People like that should be praised in forums like this. Hey, better late than never!
A climate scientist makes a dramatic announcement, and the skeptisphere goes wild. No skepticism. Just outrage. I conclude that if a climate scientist makes a claim that skeptics like, they will not analyze it, just embrace it. I need more convincing. I want names and actions against him.
Frodo says:
May 15, 2014 at 12:16 pm
Yes, I agree. And it is better later than never. Young people though should be warned against joining those “societies” and publishing in these “journals”. What to suggest instead? I don’t know yet…
Frodo says:
May 15, 2014 at 12:16 pm
With a thousand examples of left-wing political correctness associated to climate change advocacy we have to resort to definition from another liberal outlet and organ grinder, Wikipedia, to define “McCarthyism” in the most historically smearing and excessive fashion? A liberal code word phrase like “Iran Contra”, “Vietnam” or “Watergate”. Devoid of any substance or nuance in the context it is presented.
This isn’t ironic? We confirm our objection to political correctness by conforming to its standards in the same process.
Why not jump the whole shark and accuse the harassers of behaving like “big oil” or “capitalists” if we are imagining conspiracy theories wrapped up in one distorting term and behavior. It makes about as much sense.
I concur in the call to release the e-mails. name and shame, I say. The good Doctor should show us what he got.
The take home message seems to be, if we’re going down, we’re all going down together.
Thanks
Thanks, A. I totally agree with Rupert Darwall.
Bullying Professor Lennart Bengtsson is shameful, it’s criminal.
Welcome to your preview of The Times
Subscribe now
Scientists in cover-up of ‘damaging’ climate view
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/science/article4091344.ece
“I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” – Voltaire’
“I do not agree with what you have to say, and I’ll put to death your right to say it.” – Mann
I don’t exactly agree with Bengtsson, because I think the record of glacier retreat counts as observational evidence of global warming, and I think the fact that nighttime lows have been rising faster than daytime highs also supports the proposition that rising CO2 is to blame.
But a man of his stature has the right to bring his case before the world scientific community and be given a hearing. He should not have been vilified. In science, a man with a claim can be right or wrong, a fraud or honest. That’s it. There is no blasphemy in science, no crimethink and no crimefact.
When somebody makes a case against global warming, proponents, myself included, have an obligation to be civil and look at it. And if we don’t buy it, then say why.