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degree from Brandeis University on the anniversary of the Boston marathon bombings (committed by Islamists) was withdrawn after pressure from its women’s studies department.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.
Oh, I don’t know Anthony, I’m sure one of your super-rich, neoliberal think tank mates would give me a gig – they seem pretty happy to promote any old crank prepared to toe the ideological line in the face of all reality.
“because, of course, there’s no way that Connor wouldn’t take Anthony’s bet, right?”
Dead wrong. There’s no way that Connor *would* take Anthony’s bet. Why on earth would anyone want to publicly identify with cranks just to prove that they are cranks when the fact is already self evident?
The fact of the matter is that your lot can’t come up with anything close to a credible alternative hypothesis to explain what is going on all around us so instead resort to half baked conspiracy theories and whining appeals to victim-hood.
“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.”
Oh. Pure class!
Had a paper rejected? Why not punch your reviewer in the face to make yourself feel better?
And you guys wonder why no-one outside of the bubble takes you seriously?
It’s the power principle, silly.
Funny. This unknown reviewer DOES admit and emphasizes the impact of this single paper would be “high” on climate science. And that “valuable contribution” are needed in the debate … But only if those contributions agree with what the anonymous reviewer wants printed and publicized! He admits that the CMIP5 CANNOT be reconciled with the data, but refuses to BEGIN any such discussion BY REJECTING anything that exposes problems with the models and the levels of agreement between models and theory and data!
So Connor, you are in the unique university-government-bureaucratic world where you are coddled and sheltered from the real world, safe to study your religion with other people’s money you receive from the bureaucracies now and in the future as you kill millions and harm billions more by your “solutions” to YOUR self-invented CO2 climate crisis. Enjoying the Inquisition’s money as you polish its instruments of torture and control and censorship?
Hilarious seeing people who believe in a vast academic conspiracy chastising others about not living in the “real world” =D
REPLY: Not a conspiracy, a clique, or perhaps a tribe. In any event young grasshopper, you haven’t experienced the real world yet. And if you truly believe what you say, why are you afraid to try my experiment? – Anthony
RACook, I realise that the reviewer’s report is printed in joined up writing but it clearly doesn’t say what you think it says. High impact because its a crock of error strewn unoriginal bad science. It’s as if Bengtsson purposely put in a paper designed for use by fake skeptics.
Once one group of people “de-humanise” another, usually through an ideology/religion, it leads very very easily to “demonise” those who do not conform. We have many examples of this in human history, even recent history.
And I thought we were living in the 21st century.
Conner Jolly was probably one of those brave lads who stuck it up Julie Bishop at Sydney Uni a couple of days ago. The Aussie Uni Lefties suck the Kool Aid pretty hard. Or another way of saying it – they are delusional zombies Abbott with a bit of luck will be cutting all funding to the universities in Australia. See how long the zombies will breed then.
Anthony –
Let me count the ways:
1. I’m not a science student so it wouldn’t matter a squat anyway so your experiment would be flawed
2. If I was going to be, say, an astrophysicist and publicly declared I was “sceptical” of gravity I’d probably quite rightly not get a job in that field either
3. I’m a 33 year old man so thanks for your condescending assumptions about my life experience but you don’t have the first clue about where I’m at in terms of my profession or my study.
4. Did I mention the thing about not identifying with cranks just to prove cranks are cranks?
I could go on but I think you get the picture… Oh, what am I saying, I forgot the type of people I’m talking to… I’d *hope* you get the picture but suspect you probably won’t.
REPLY: OK kid, noted. Too scared to do it… so, bafflegab. So If I went ahead now, put up a story about you, name, etc declaring you have become a climate skeptic, it would have no effect on you. So let’s see how it goes.- A
I sure hope you put this on your front page too, Anthony!
//
Professor Lennart Bengtsson, professorial research fellow at the University of Reading, said:
“I do not believe there is any systematic “cover up” of scientific evidence on climate change or that academics’ work is being “deliberately suppressed”, as The Times front page suggests. I am worried by a wider trend that science is being gradually being influenced by political views. Policy decisions need to be based on solid fact.
“I was concerned that the Environmental Research Letters reviewer’s comments suggested his or her opinion was not objective or based on an unbiased assessment of the scientific evidence. Science relies on having a transparent and robust peer review system so I welcome the Institute of Physics publishing the reviewers’ comments in full. I accept that Environmental Research Letters is entitled to its final decision not to publish this paper – that is part and parcel of academic life. The peer review process is imperfect but it is still the best way to assess academic work.
“I was surprised by the strong reaction from some scientists outside the UK to joining the Global Warming Policy Foundation this month. I had hoped that it would be platform to bring more common sense into the global climate debate.
“Academic freedom is a central aspect to life at University of Reading. It is a very open, positive and supportive environment to work in. I have always felt able to put forward my arguments and opinions without any prejudice.”
//
http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-claims-climate-research-was-suppressed/
But, of course, it’s all a vast conspiracy. You’re all being bullied. By those mean scientists with their peer review processes. You’re just like Galileo.
REPLY: Well, you certainly seem to be acting like a taunting bully now, displaying the same tribalism we see at other Universities when they view themselves and their cause as more “pure” than us down in the dirt climate skeptics. -A
Connor, you should read this true story of selective abuse of a climate skeptic:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/19/the-climate-wars-and-the-university-of-delaware/
[snip – we don’t have to put up with your insults, Mr. Jolley – your contempt is noted – Anthony]
Truth hurts, eh Anthony?
REPLY: Nope, I’m laughing at you for being so impotent in your argument, when you fall back on insults, you’ve already lost… but we do have a site policy and you violated it – Anthony
Hilarious that people who complain about being silenced and bullied are the first to silence and bully others 😀
REPLY: we do have a site policy and you violated it, but it is pretty common for people that have been indoctrinated as you have. You think you are above such rules because you think your cause is “just and noble” (saving the Earth, and by extension, mankind). Look up “Noble Cause Corruption” and try self analysis, and you’ll discover you are having a superhero fantasy. – Anthony
Connor Jolley says:
May 21, 2014 at 6:04 am
While that is certainly true of the climate alarmists, who silence and bully all in their path, and while it is demonstrably the case for the unindicted Climategate co-conspirators, to my knowledge no scientific voices have ever been silenced at WattsUpWithThat. If you have evidence of scientific opinions not being allowed here, I invite you to either provide the evidence or give it a rest …
Unlike sites like RealClimate, we hear from all sides here at WUWT … well, that is to say, all sides that don’t violate the pretty broad and accommodating site policy.
I note that you have not responded to the issues I asked for your opinion on above. Let me quote them:
Rather than respond to that, you have done everything you can (including violating site policy) to distract the conversation away from those very real issues.
In any case, having seen good men hounded from their jobs by your side of the discussion, and having seen your side idolize Peter Gleick for mail fraud and theft of company documents and doing hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of damage, and having seen the Climategate folks condemned by their own words for trying to smear and silence the skeptics, having watched Stephen Schneider tell us that it’s OK to exaggerate the threats if you are Saving The World™ …
… well, Connor, after all of that, your claim that the skeptical side are the ones doing that kind of slimy stuff is a pathetic, childish joke. The alarmists are the ones who subverted the IPCC rules, not the skeptics. The alarmists are the ones who have hounded people from their jobs and positions, not the skeptics. And not only that, you’ve celebrated and feted and honored the very people like Gleick and Mann and the others who have been the worst offenders.
My best advice would be to go away, son. Don’t go away mad. Just go away. There’s nothing for you here but a mirror which reflects your own actions recapitulating your own side’s faults, showing one more pathetic alarmist trying once again to harass and threaten, making false accusations and hoping they’ll frighten people into agreement … sorry to be the one to give you the memo, Connor, but truly, the bell has rung, the game is over, and your side lost. Best to make your peace with it …
w.
I think you people would be shocked if you realised just how surreal your bizzaro-world alternate reality looks to an outsider looking in. It really is good sport watching the unhinging as your star fades and the relevance deprivation syndrome starts to take hold. Just like the people who said that tobacco was harmless, people are going to look back at the brief moment in history when you managed to grab a *little* bit of attention and shake their collective heads in disbelief that people could be so crazy.