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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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
@ur momisugly 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:
!^%^%@ur momisugly! 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