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.
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?
@ur momisugly Frodo ; @ur momisugly 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:
@ur momisugly Frodo ; @ur momisugly 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.