Newsbytes – Climate Science McCarthyism

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

 

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

74 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
milodonharlani
May 15, 2014 9:17 am

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

motvikten
May 15, 2014 9:20 am

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”

David L. Hagen
May 15, 2014 9:20 am

Spiegel Online: Climate scientists Bengtsson : “I was afraid for my health and safety”
BREAKING: THE CLIMATE MAFIA STRIKES

I’ve been referring to the climate campaigners here as the “Climatistas” to chide their cult-like resemblance to the romantic Sandinista sympathizers of the 1980s, but it should not be forgotten that the real Sandinistas were a pack of nasty thugs. Likewise, the climate establishment behaves more like the Mafia today, telling any scientist or academic who might consider any departure from orthodoxy: “Nice little scientific career you have here; shame if anything were to happen to it.”

Ex-Director of Top Global Warming Center Compares Warmunism to McCarthyism FrontPage

It’s a consensus and if you deviate from it in any way, you will be terrorized until you back off. Because that’s science… and why do you hate science? . . .
This isn’t much of a win. Instead events like these show that the consensus that Warmunists like Al Gore keep hyping is nothing more than a combination of special interest bribery, ideological conformity and political terror.

John McClure
May 15, 2014 9:21 am

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:

May 15, 2014 9:23 am

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”….

T-Bird
May 15, 2014 9:24 am

At this point, the entire Democratic Party should be RICO’ed. (Sorry hit the button too soon on the above.)

David L. Hagen
May 15, 2014 9:25 am

“Climate Change” Politics now similar to the Holocaust.
The World Is Full of Holocaust Deniers

“A new survey suggests that many Asians, Africans, Middle Easterners, young people, Muslims, and Hindus believe that facts about the genocide have been distorted.” . . .
Depressingly, the study does hint at the way most people get their information about Jews and the Holocaust today:

i.e., 52% TV, 13% Internet, 10% Newspapers.

May 15, 2014 9:27 am

People should fear the effects of a growing intellectual tyranny far more than any effects from CO2.

Zeke
May 15, 2014 9:27 am

“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.

ConfusedPhoton
May 15, 2014 9:30 am

“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!

mmesch@ionsky.com
May 15, 2014 9:31 am

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.

David L. Hagen
May 15, 2014 9:34 am

Climate Science: No Dissent Allowed
Pat Michaels & Chip Knappenberger, Cato Institute

This letter is stunning in its candor and shows that that all the conspiring and bullying that the was on full display in the Climategate email release continues unabashedly today.
Aside from a bit of personal embarrassment from particularly bad behavior, by and large the climate science establishment just shrugged its shoulders at the Climategate revelations with a “Yeah, so what?” That’s a fitting response as they seek to control the scientific discourse when it comes to climate change. Group pressure is an effective means of doing so.
What Climategate taught the bully cohort of scientists was they could continue to bully their colleagues, sabotage their publications, and intimidate journal editors with impunity. As evidenced from Dr. Bengtsson’s resignation letter, if it has changed at all, the situation in climate science is worse now than it was before the emails were leaked. . . .
[Alarmist fund raising letter from American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
“We need to make it clear that scientists believe that doing nothing now is extremely dangerous . . .”]
Anyone thinking that there is an open flow of ideas in climate science is 100 percent wrong.

cwon14
May 15, 2014 9:35 am

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.

Quinn
May 15, 2014 9:35 am

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.”

ossqss
May 15, 2014 9:36 am

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!

May 15, 2014 9:41 am

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.

DrJohnGalan
May 15, 2014 9:47 am

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).

David L. Hagen
May 15, 2014 9:52 am

“Witch hunt” forces top scientist to quit climate sceptic think-tank ClickGreen

One of the world’s most eminent climate scientists Professor Lennart Bengtsson has blamed a McCarthy-style witch hunt for his decision to quit a controversial climate change sceptic think-tank after just three weeks.

cwon14
May 15, 2014 10:03 am

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.

Editor
May 15, 2014 10:07 am

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.

May 15, 2014 10:11 am

And the Luddites win another round.

NikFromNYC
May 15, 2014 10:17 am

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)

NikFromNYC
May 15, 2014 10:23 am

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.

John Whitman
May 15, 2014 10:29 am

DrJohnGalan says:
May 15, 2014 at 9:47 am

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).

– – – – – – – – – – –
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.

"..a debate where none should exist” Mann soliloquized. He's a useful foil to legions of irrepressible scientists debating right in his face— John Whitman (@PremDetAnalysis) April 30, 2014

and

study idea: Mann's climate communication by Recursive Debatelessness & how rejection was expedited for theory of alarming AGW by fossil fuel— John Whitman (@PremDetAnalysis) April 30, 2014

John

May 15, 2014 10:32 am

Roger Sowell says:
May 15, 2014 at 9:14 am

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.

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.