From The GWPF (originally in The Times)
When did demonising your opponents become so acceptable?
Lennart Bengtsson is about as distinguished as climate scientists get. His decision two weeks ago to join the academic advisory board (on which I also sit, unremunerated) of Nigel Lawson’s Global Warming Policy Foundation was greeted with fury by many fellow climate scientists. Now in a McCarthyite move — his analogy — they have bullied him into resigning by refusing to collaborate with him unless he leaves.
The GWPF aims to ensure that the climate-change debate is more balanced. Its members are not “deniers”, yet as Lord Lawson said in a recent speech: “I have never in my life experienced the extremes of personal hostility, vituperation and vilification that I, along with other dissenters, of course, have received for my views on global warming and global-warming policies.”
Professor Bengtsson’s resignation shows that the alleged “consensus” on dangerous global warming involves suppressing dissent by academic bullying. He emphasises that there is no consensus about how fast and how far greenhouse warming will go, let alone what can be done in response.
Evidence of such bullying emerged in the “Climategate” scandal of 2009, where some climate scientists’ emails revealed them to be ready to threaten and blackball colleagues, reporters and editors who expressed sceptical views. I talk frequently to scientists who are unconvinced that climate change is even close to being the world’s most pressing environmental problem, but who will not put their heads above the parapet for fear of what it would do to their careers.
What is going on in academia when demonising and silencing your opponents has become so acceptable? It’s not just climate change. The nature-nurture debate is also policed by zealots, although less so than in the 1970s when any mention of genes and behaviour led to accusations of fascism.
Or consider Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a woman who suffered genital mutilation, attempted forced marriage, attempted assassination and double exile for her views. The offer of an honorary degree from Brandeis University on the anniversary of the Boston marathon bombings (committed by Islamists) was withdrawn after pressure from its women’s studies department.
Professor Bengtsson’s persecution shows precisely why independent think-tanks such as the Global Warming Policy Foundation are essential. Truly, the old joke is becoming ever more true: what’s the opposite of diversity? University.
http://www.thegwpf.org/matt-ridley-this-bullying-of-climate-sceptics-must-end/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
So…does this mean that everyone here is agreeing to be respectful in their comments?
<<<>>
Nothing is going on that is any new. Newton hrassed Leibniz in 1600-1700s, behaving like a sob. Waterson’s brilliant work on kinetic theory was rejected as he didn’t belong to the “society” – delaying progress in kinetic theory of gases by several decades… And so on, and so on… Not just climate change.
Climate Science has been politicized to promote political agendas,
That’s why!!
“Truly, the old joke is becoming ever more true: what’s the opposite of diversity? University.”
There are two very sad things about this statement. The first is that I find it ever so clever and I didn’t even know it had been made. Where have I been? The second is that it has finally come not to be a joke but apparently the truth.
Although I am decidedly tired of the term “bullying” being used for everything from sticking your tongue out at some one to teasing to, well, enough said, in this case, it is far more appropriate. But this type of action can only happen when an entrie society has been “dumbed down” so that it cannot accept or respect individual thinking. Science has always been most successful when it has been driven by individual thinking, and not a “hive mind.” Same is true with climate science.
But what probably will always bother me about what the IPCC is doing, more than anything else – even beyond “hive mind thinking” – is projecting confidence in a process that cannot be successful. Unless you fully understand a process, you cannot “model” it with predictive capabilities. If you understand 10,000 factors about the process but there are 2,000 factors you only partially know and thus have deemed unimportant, there is no possibility of your predictions from the model to be accurate, and the further out you get in your predictions, the less accurate it can be. The current models do not have all the forces that create change in the climate integrated, and there are God alone knows how many factors that have not even been realized as yet.
Their trying to predict climate in the future is about as accurate as standing with a rifle in front of an open window looking through 100 window frames set in walls in succession at a target. There is a flag near the target to indicate the direction and force of the wind and you can feel it in the room you are standing. You can allow for the wind in the room and that which seems to blowing by the target and aim with the expectation of hitting the bullseye since you know the effects of gravity. When you pull the trigger, you miss horribly up and to the right. You adjust for that and any changes in the wind at both ends, aim, fire and miss horrible low and to the left. Without knowing the wind factors between each pair of walls, you have only a prayer of hitting the bullseye even once. And that is about what they are trying to do with a computer model of a climate that they do not understand in the first place. No wonder they are “bullying.” They don’t know whatthey are doing and don’t want anyone to point that fact out to the guys with the fat wallets.
Um… IOP have released the full review comments, your claims of victim-hood and conspiracy theories have absolutely no basis. He’s not a lone hero being bullied by the establishment. He’s not Galileo. He’s somebody who submitted a flawed paper and instead of simply sucking it up and addressing the concerns raised by the reviewers before resubmitting the work he instead went to the media claiming that he was being persecuted.
http://ioppublishing.org/newsDetails/statement-from-iop-publishing-on-story-in-the-times
//
COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR(S)
The manuscript uses a simple energy budget equation (as employed e.g. by Gregory et al 2004, 2008, Otto et al 2013) to test the consistency between three recent “assessments” of radiative forcing and climate sensitivity (not really equilibrium climate sensitivity in the case of observational studies).
The study finds significant differences between the three assessments and also finds that the independent assessments of forcing and climate sensitivity within AR5 are not consistent if one assumes the simple energy balance model to be a perfect description of reality.
The overall innovation of the manuscript is very low, as the calculations made to compare the three studies are already available within each of the sources, most directly in Otto et al.
The finding of differences between the three “assessments” and within the assessments (AR5), when assuming the energy balance model to be right, and compared to the CMIP5 models are reported as apparent inconsistencies.
The paper does not make any significant attempt at explaining or understanding the differences, it rather puts out a very simplistic negative message giving at least the implicit impression of “errors” being made within and between these assessments, e.g. by emphasising the overlap of authors on two of the three studies.
What a paper with this message should have done instead is recognising and explaining a series of “reasons” and “causes” for the differences.
– The comparison between observation based estimates of ECS and TCR (which would have been far more interesting and less impacted by the large uncertainty about the heat content change relative to the 19th century) and model based estimates is comparing apples and pears, as the models are calculating true global means, whereas the observations have limited coverage. This difference has been emphasised in a recent contribution by Kevin Cowtan, 2013.
– The differences in the forcing estimates used e.g. between Otto et al 2013 and AR5 are not some “unexplainable change of mind of the same group of authors” but are following different tow different logics, and also two different (if only slightly) methods of compiling aggregate uncertainties relative to the reference period, i.e. the Otto et al forcing is deliberately “adjusted” to represent more closely recent observations, whereas AR5 has not put so much weight on these satellite observations, due to still persisting potential problems with this new technology
– The IPCC process itself explains potential inconsistencies under the strict requirement of a simplistic energy balance: The different estimates for temperature, heat uptake, forcing, and ECS and TCR are made within different working groups, at slightly different points in time, and with potentially different emphasis on different data sources. The IPCC estimates of different quantities are not based on single data sources, nor on a fixed set of models, but by construction are expert based assessments based on a multitude of sources. Hence the expectation that all expert estimates are completely consistent within a simple energy balance model is unfunded from the beginning.
– Even more so, as the very application of the Kappa model (the simple energy balance model employed in this work, in Otto et al, and Gregory 2004) comes with a note of caution, as it is well known (and stated in all these studies) to underestimate ECS, compared to a model with more time-scales and potential non-linearities (hence again no wonder that CMIP5 doesn’t fit the same ranges)
Summarising, the simplistic comparison of ranges from AR4, AR5, and Otto et al, combined with the statement they they are inconsistent is less then helpful, actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of “errors” and worse from the climate sceptics media side.
One cannot and should not simply interpret the IPCCs ranges for AR4 or 5 as confidence intervals or pdfs and hence they are not directly comparable to observation based intervals (as e.g. in Otto et al).
In the same way that one cannot expect a nice fit between observational studies and the CMIP5 models.
A careful, constructive, and comprehensive analysis of what these ranges mean, and how they come to be different, and what underlying problems these comparisons bring would indeed be a valuable contribution to the debate.
I have rated the potential impact in the field as high, but I have to emphasise that this would be a strongly negative impact, as it does not clarify anything but puts up the (false) claim of some big inconsistency, where no consistency was to be expected in the first place.
And I can’t see an honest attempt of constructive explanation in the manuscript.
Thus I would strongly advise rejecting the manuscript in its current form.
REPLY: Oh please, Connor. We already have this on the front page. As a student at an Australian University (per the information you provided), you have no idea about what is actually going on in the real world yet. If you want to dispute this, and do a real world test, I have a solution: how about you claim yourself to be a climate skeptic, we’ll put up a full announcement here, making sure it is distributed worldwide, and you can report on how your post college job search goes?
I’m game to run his test. Just say the word.- Anthony
Perception of risk is highly personal, but the warmistas want to enforce their views of what climate risk is acceptable. Some people are terrified of animals and some wrestle alligators. How much to spend to avoid risk is also a personal value, but again we are not to be permitted to debate this point. Some people buy an extended warranty for their car, some don’t. Some people are willing to live is a rundown neighborhood to be close to work, and some are not. Especially when some of the leaders (e.g., James Hansen) explicitly call for coal plants to be shut down immediately, it is clear that opinions differ. But opinions and values and preferences are not to be allowed.
Well, let’s see. How about the acrid name calling associated with the Multi-Regionalist vs Recent Out of Africa hypotheses about the evolution of anatomically modern humans – http://suspectterrane.blogspot.com/2010/04/neanderthal.html
Or perhaps Plate Tectonics. In 1928 the AAPG arranged an ENTIRE symposium with the sole intent of discrediting Alfred Wegener. Too bad he died in 1930 before he could see himself vindicated in spades.
Or, how about neo-Darwinians vs Punctuated equilibrianists? Those arguments get pretty intense and name calling is the norm.
As recently as 1980 I recall a prominent geologist referring to anyone who ascribed to plate tectonics in a derisive and dismissive manner as “Those Plate Tectonics Boys” as if it was a conspiracy club of good ole boys.
This ain’t new, but there is more at stake so the arguments being hurled at us are more vigorous. Remember what William J. Lepetamane said *Blaxing Saddles): “Gentlemen, we’ve got to protect our phoney-baloney jobs!”
One word for it, shameful! Glad I am an engineer instead!
Theologian expresses doubts about the existence of God, and reaches out to an agnostic organisation.
Cue outrage from the true believers……..
Unfortunately it goes far beyond just academia.
Demonisation is often the primary human weapon for dealing with rivals.
Joe McCarthy was a nose-picker, therefore it’s OK that the military and government were riddled with Reds.
That such idiotic logic should prevail is apt testimony to the foolishness of many humans. even bright ones.
~
Ad homs are a Red Flag that the mud-slinger has no facts.
When did demonising your opponents become so acceptable?
When it became so profitable.
When did demonising your opponents become so acceptable?
That’s how you know it’s statism, not science.
I had never heard the joke about diversity and university. But it is accurate. I guess another example of how satire begets reality.
Watched an old movie on TCM last month, “The Story of Louis Pasteur”(1938) with Paul Muni. The harassment and bullying Pasteur received from the consensus of the French Science Academy parallels the current events.
Connor Jolley says:
May 16, 2014 at 8:49 am
Connor, the issue raised by Matt Ridley was the demonization and bullying of Bengtsson, Lord Lawson, and Matt himself based on their membership on the GWPF academic advisory board.
The quality of his scientific work has nothing to do with whether he is being harassed and attacked for being on the board. The IOP review comments have nothing to do with whether he is being harassed and attacked for being on the board. The attacks finally rose to the point where he has resigned from the board.
For you to speciously claim at this point that he has not been a victim of harassment, threats, and abuse is a sick joke. Whether he is being harassed and abused does not depend on some single paper he wrote.
Either he is being harassed and abused or he isn’t, and in this case he is. Just as Lord Lawson has been. Just as Matt Ridley has been. Perhaps you could deal with that ugly fact instead of trying to change the subject to the quality of some paper he wrote. Because as it stands, it sure sounds like you are an ardent supporter of the “demonize the skeptics” movement …
w.
“Joe McCarthy was a nose-picker, therefore it’s OK that the military and government were riddled with Reds.”
While we’re at it can we get rid of straw dog, false dichotomies like the above?
I think the climate debate is different from the examples given in the comments like plate tectonics, nature vs nurture, etc. First, there is so much at stake for both scientists dependent on the government for funding and for society in general. The debate is much more public than the often arcane and esoteric arguments from other scientific controversies. Nearly everyone has an opinion on global warming whether it is informed or merely parroted.
“When did demonising your opponents become so acceptable?”
It has always been there, it is a part of human behaviour and part of the pack behaviour.
To stand against the pack requires courage. Not so to strike and bite your opponent under the protection of the pack. Witch hunts. The only way mediocrities become “top dogs” and are allowed to bark freely. On their own would be immediately pushed back.
To have an ayatollah to tell them they are right and fight for the right causes is all that needs to unleash them.
Forget thinking, forget civil discourse, forget listening to dangerous truth that might endanger their religion, Unfortunately we are back there, we just did a detour and thought we left it behind…
“When did demonizing your opponents become so acceptable?” How about 1971 when Saul Alinsky wrote “Rules for Radicals”:
* RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.) /unquote.
What defines “Acceptable”? Could it be Hilary Clinton writing her thesis in admiration of Alinsky?
Or when Barak Obama was recruited from NYC to Chicago in order to teach principles of Alinsky’s philosophies to community organizers?
Bengtsson, Koch brothers, John Cristy – at this point, what does it matter?
“I have a solution”
Who wants to bet that Connor had a major stroke, and that’s why he couldn’t respond to Anthony’s challenge…because, of course, there’s no way that Connor wouldn’t take Anthony’s bet, right?
The no.1 and no.2 of the top 5 reasons people bully.
1. Bullies have a strong need to be in control and exert their dominance over others
2. Bullies are rewarded for their bullying behaviors
– urbandojo.com
AGW science is the single mom bully factory of science. Googles provides a bottomless pit of comparison humor…and really should not be that easy…eureka!
Weird Science Chet says:
May 16, 2014 at 3:10 pm (Edit)
There is an extremely effective way to deal with bullying that prevents further bullying and provides an unparalleled boost to self-esteem: A judiciously administered knuckle sandwich. I highly recommend it.
evanmjones says:
May 16, 2014 at 4:19 pm
Well, yeah, that’s all Hollywood. The problem with tit for tat is that their tats may be bigger than your tits.
We have the truth ,main street no longer believes just keep up the fight and we will win.
Phil Space in Private Eye does a better job than Ridley did here. But then I’m bullying all climate skeptics when I say that I disagree with them and reserve the right to associate with them.