In climate science, the more things change, the more they stay the same

change1Scientists are still behaving badly

It has been an extraordinary week. To review, we have news of the resignation of Lennart Bengtsson from The GWPF due to McCarthyism style pressure from climate science community, and according to him, particularly from academics in the USA. Then we have his ERL paper rejection by what appears to be baseless grounds from a reviewer who opined it would be “…less then helpful, actually it is harmful…”. 

That, combined with the dead serious but simultaneously laughable legal threat letter from the University of Queensland to Brandon Shollenberger telling him he may get sued, or worse, become a target of a criminal investigation, because he wants to write a scientific rebuttal to John Cook’s “97% consensus” paper, using Cook’s own ratings data, which Cook refuses share but left out in the open on a collaboration website. All of that speaks to scientists behaving badly.


AGU 2013 Climate Science Under Legal Attack – Scientists Tell their stories. L-R Naomi Oreskes, Jeff Ruch (PEER), Kevin Trenberth, Michael Mann, Andrew Dessler, Ben Santer

In looking at the Bengtsson affair, I see the same M.O. we’ve seen before from people we are familiar with, and it is my opinion that we’ll eventually find that Peter Gleick, Michael Mann, Ben Santer, and Kevin Trenberth along with some other familiar names were involved in that “pressure” that Bengtsson speaks of. I hope he’ll eventually publish those emails, but if not, they’ll eventually come out.

When I attended AGU 2013, I was struck by how some scientists claim they have been “bullied” while also playing victims, with advertising even! (see photo)


Digital signage seen at AGU2013

But, at the same time these same scientists do lots of visible and invisible bullying themselves. Their AGU2013 session on “facing legal attacks” seemed to be nothing more than projection. The bottom line is these bozos have gotten themselves into the FOIA legal quagmire because they won’t share the data and process to allow their science to be replicated and self-policed by the larger body of scientists as it is supposed to be. Instead, they take the role of demi-clods, making pronouncements and saying “trust us”, while simultaneously hoping the FOIA requests and discovery process can be stonewalled away. The Mann-vs- Steyn affair for example, is the classic case. Mann advances his lawsuit, but won’t play by the rules of discovery, probably because he thinks he doesn’t have to comply. Still, Steyn’s lawsuit remains our best chance at finally getting to the bottom of Mann’s hockey-stick fiasco or as he calls it, “The Descent of Mann“.

The events we witnessed this week are indications that academic bureaucracy and the small cadre of “team climate science” hasn’t learned one damn thing since Climategate. For them, it’s business as usual with impunity.

Dr. Matt Ridley wrote an essay at his blog, The Rational Optimist titled The coerced consensus” which is well worth reading. But the thing that struck me the most was his list of references from the Climategate affair, which reads like the script from the movie “The Gang Who Couldn’t Shoot Straight”. It seems clear to me that at least in the field of paleoclimatology, these scientists really don’t have a clue about ethical and professional behavior. Look at this list compiled by Ridley, and you’ll see what I mean.


Examples of the threatening and blackballing of scientists, reporters and editors in the Climategate emails (note: broken links updated – Anthony)

  • Phil Jones writes to University of Hull to try to stop sceptic Sonia Boehmer Christiansen using her Hull affiliation. Graham F Haughton of Hull University says its easier to push greenery there now SB-C has retired.( 1256765544)
  • Michael Mann discusses how to destroy a journal that has published sceptic papers.( 1047388489)
  • Letter to The Times from climate scientists was drafted with the help of Greenpeace.( 0872202064)
  • Mann thinks he will contact BBC’s Richard Black to find out why another BBC journalist was allowed to publish a vaguely sceptical article.( 1255352257)
  • Tom Wigley says that von Storch is partly to blame for sceptic papers getting published at Climate Research. Says he encourages the publication of crap science. Says they should tell publisher that the journal is being used for misinformation. Says that whether this is true or not doesn’t matter. Says they need to get editorial board to resign. Says they need to get rid of von Storch too. ( 1051190249)
  • Ben Santer says (presumably jokingly!) he’s “tempted, very tempted, to beat the crap” out of sceptic Pat Michaels. ( 1255100876)
  • Tom Wigley discusses how to deal with the advent of FoI law in UK. Jones says use IPR argument to hold onto code. Says data is covered by agreements with outsiders and that CRU will be “hiding behind them”.( 1106338806)
  • Santer complaining about FoI requests from McIntyre. Says he expects support of Lawrence Livermore Lab management. Jones says that once support staff at CRU realised the kind of people the scientists were dealing with they became very supportive. Says the VC [vice chancellor] knows what is going on (in one case).( 1228330629)
  • Rob Wilson concerned about upsetting Mann in a manuscript. Says he needs to word things diplomatically.( 1140554230)
  • Briffa says he is sick to death of Mann claiming his reconstruction is tropical because it has a few poorly temp sensitive tropical proxies. Says he should regress these against something else like the “increasing trend of self-opinionated verbiage” he produces. Ed Cook agrees with problems.( 1024334440)
  • Santer says he will no longer publish in Royal Met Soc journals if they enforce intermediate data being made available. Jones has complained to head of Royal Met Soc about new editor of Weather [why?data?] and has threatened to resign from RMS.( 1237496573)
  • Reaction to McIntyre’s 2005 paper in GRL. Mann has challenged GRL editor-in-chief over the publication. Mann is concerned about the connections of the paper’s editor James Saiers with U Virginia [does he mean Pat Michaels?]. Tom Wigley says that if Saiers is a sceptic they should go through official GRL channels to get him ousted.( 1106322460) [Note to readers – Saiers was subsequently ousted]
  • Later on Mann refers to the leak at GRL being plugged.( 1132094873)
  • Jones says that UK climate organisations are coordinating themselves to resist FoI. They got advice from the Information Commissioner [!]( 1219239172)
  • Mann tells Revkin that McIntyre is not to be trusted.( 1254259645)
  • Jones says in a HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL email that he and Kevin will keep some papers out of the next IPCC report.( 1089318616)
  • Tom Wigley tells Mann that a figure Schmidt put together to refute Monckton is deceptive and that the match it shows of instrumental to model predictions is a fluke. Says there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model output by authors and IPCC.( 1255553034)
  • Grant Foster putting together a critical comment on a sceptic paper. Asks for help for names of possible reviewers. Jones replies with a list of people, telling Foster they know what to say about the paper and the comment without any prompting.( 1249503274)
  • Briffa discusses an sceptic article review with Ed Cook. Says that confidentially he needs to put together a case to reject it ( 1054756929)
  • Ben Santer, referring to McIntyre says he hopes Mr “I’m not entirely there in the head” will not be at the AGU.( 1233249393)

And here is what a climate scientist, Michael Schlesinger, wrote to Andy Revkin of the New York Times shortly afterwards:


Copenhagen prostitutes?

Climate prostitutes?

Shame on you for this gutter reportage. This is the second time this week I have written you thereon, the first about giving space in your blog to the Pielkes.

The vibe that I am getting from here, there and everywhere is that your reportage is very worrisome to most climate scientists. Of course, your blog is your blog. But, I sense that you are about to experience the ‘Big Cutoff’ from those of us who believe we can no longer trust you, me included.

Copenhagen prostitutes?

Unbelievable and unacceptable.

What are you doing and why?



Got that? Toe the line as a reporter or we’ll cut you off.

And from this thread on WUWT: Professor Murry Salby who is critical of AGW theory, is being disenfranchised, exiled, from academia in Australia

…we have this comment from Dr. Jan Perlwitz, of NASA GISS/Columbia University in New York, which earned him a permanent ban from WUWT, due to his threat of violence:


What a bunch of climate mafia thugs. This is not going to end well.

UPDATE: Bishop Hill has a story also well worth reading:

The bigotry of the consensus


newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Shawn in High River

Its really unbelievable when its all laid out like this


This is the way of fascism. The next step will be reeducation camps followed by concentration camps for those who choose not to submit.

The idea of actively using deceit to try to socially engineer the unity of Mankind has always seemed farcical to me. In CAGW, as in Radical ed reforms in K-12 and higher ed, we see that people pursue what is in their self-interest. Lying to the public and coercive boycotts and mind arson are what brings in the grant money and tenure and promotions and so that is what is happening. It was no accident that a key aspect of the Convergence workshop the NRC put on last September involved Arizona State’s Michael Crow explaining how to use tenure and promotion policies to force profs to move away from the traditional disciplinary focus. Same techniques as what was earlier used with CAGW and to promote constructivist math and science.


Demi-Clods! Very funny! Sadly the facism of the Klimate Klub is not. I would find their insufferable lack of a sense of humour and pseudo prudish attitude amusing if it were not so repugnant and dangerous for normal, right thinking people.

Adam Gallon

The linked e-mails go to defunct website.
REPLY: I’ve asked Ridley to update his list – Anthony

One more point on the law. Instead of the traditional focus of the law as a set of rules, law schools now are being pressured by their accreditors to focus on the law as a normative tool for driving social change. I heard several references to telling law students that they had an obligation to use the law to promote the common good at a cle conference I went to. I asked if this was a new obligation. The law prof said no, it was just his personal recommendation. Later a law school dean found me at lunch and asked why I had asked the question. I said I was seeing this obligation in K-12 and higher ed as a required component of what was considered acceptable student achievement and no one need never know. He said that I was right. It was also a component of what law schools must foster as well.
Education administrators helping someone like Mann fight off FOIA and subpoenas would know that younger lawyers have a totally different view of the purpose of the law. They deal with accreditation as the engine of using education to change prevailing worldviews all the time.
We really need to appreciate the extent to which all of our social institutions and organizations have been thoroughly marched through and captured in the Gramscian sense. This week just showed how it all now works in practice.

Jimmy Haigh.

Truly a Churchillian week: Not the beginning of the end…


There is a name for what the AGU crowd is doing, it’s Lysenkoism.


The next President with an R after his name must demand all of academia produce all documentation and data on anything concerning climate. Failure to do so will disqualify anything they have contributed to climate science and funding will be cut. That is the type of thing that MUST be done to bring this to an end. It needs to be done in public and covered by the media so the public will see they were and are not following the scientific method, therefore all their prognostications about the future are without merit.
Then the dismantling of the global warming industry can begin. And make it perfectly clear that the UN was up to their necks in this horrendously expensive scam to whip the public into a frenzy enough that we can tell the UN to go to hell and vacate New York.

Steve Oregon

This Climate Mafia thuggery extends throughout land use and transportation planning with all of the same methods used to advance various causes to impose their will upon society.
Billions are at stake for the central planning cartel so they use whatever means necessary.

It will turn out ok, I believe. Nature Bats Last.
This week, freeze and frost occurred in the farm belt’s northern part (USA). If crops are freeze-damaged, that is very bad. But, late freezes are consistent with a cooling world, not a warming world.
Meanwhile, CO2 continues to increase. Sunspots are very few.
AGW believers will have a most difficult time explaining the lack of warmth that leads to crop failures.

Frank K.

So what are the ultimate aims of the left-wing, progressive climate thugs/fascists? We are about to find out here in the U.S.:
“President Obama’s big carbon crackdown readies for launch”

Overplaying the hand.

Gary Pearse

Anyone else unable to get links in the list to work? Is this more bullying and obfuscation?

David L. Hagen

Prof. Richard Lindzen writes: Climate of Fear: Global Warming Alarmists Intimidate Dissenting Scientists into Silence

Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding. And only the most senior scientists today can stand up against this alarmist gale, and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers.

Michael Chrighton exposed it in: State of Fear
Mark Steyn provides further examples in Bengtsson Burners
This “Climate of Fear” is why Mark Steyn’s counter suit against stop Michael Mann is so important.

If you’re older, tenured, sufficiently eminent and can stand his acolytes jumping you in the parking lot and taking the hockey stick to you, you’ll acknowledge that his greatest achievement is distinguished mainly for its “misrepresentations” and “falsifications”.
But, if you’re a younger scientist, you know that, if you cross Mann and the other climate mullahs, there goes tenure, there goes funding, there goes your career: you’ll be cut off like Briffa’s tree rings. I’ve been stunned to learn of the very real fear of retribution that pervades the climate world. That’s why I’m playing this one differently from the Maclean’s case: Dr Mann will be on the witness stand under oath, and the lies that went unchallenged in the Big Climate echo chamber will not prove so easy to get away with. I didn’t seek this battle with this disreputable man. But, when it’s over, I hope that those who work in this field will once again be free to go where the science leads.

Science is dead bring the witch to burn or dunk sad this world is yoda

Peter Miller

Are there actually any ethical individuals amongst the alarmist climate scientists?
I presume there must be, but when you look at some of the antics of Lew, Mann, Jones, Cook, Trenberth, Hansen and Flannery, it seems they have deliberately set out to make an oxymoron of the term ‘ethical climate scientist’.
Climate mafia or climate cult? When, oh when, is the world going to wake up to the machinations of these people who defile the name of science?

Chuck Nolan

nigelf says:
May 17, 2014 at 10:35 am

Then the dismantling of the global warming industry can begin. And make it perfectly clear that the UN was up to their necks in this horrendously expensive scam to whip the public into a frenzy enough that we can tell the UN to go to hell and vacate New York.
They should relocate the UN to Somalia.

Pamela Gray

This kind of closed minded view towards independent and unbiased critique or thought is in other circles too. Interestingly, it occurs on both sides of a debate. It nails home the fact that we are still not far from our caves. Belief in one’s chosen satan, be it the warmists’ human-CO2 or the conservatives’ public school Common Core, is everywhere. Folks, we still have a loooooong way to go before we are gifted with a generation of science minded folk equipped with scare tactic radar warning systems.

Jimmy Haigh.

Roger Sowell? I get you 100%.
I have absolutely no idea what Mosher is on about.

JP Miller

Michael Mann was interviewed on CNBC this morning opining that Antarctic glacier melt leading to catastrophe was now unstoppable, or some such nonsense. The newscaster took in all in with worried seriousness.
Where is Fox — or any MSM — to understand there is a counter-story as per this blog post that’s important and worth telling. It’s like Watergate is happening live and the CREEPs are being interviewed and complaining that they are not yet winning the election and yet nobody is pointing to the break-in or the other dirt tricks being perpetrated.
I’ve never witnessed such public insanity in my life — and I do business in 20+ developing countries where corruption and public lying is considered normal behavior.

“Overplaying the hand.”
You mean the alarmists are overplaying their hand? Or are you saying Anthony/Ridley are overplaying their hand? If the latter, are you suggesting that some of the items in the list are not correct? By many counts, there are many more shenanigans that could be properly listed — it is a pretty conservative list set forth in the post.

Pamela Gray

Stephen M, this isn’t a simple matter of overplaying your hand. It’s more like trying to engage in fair play but the opposition has stacked the deck and fixed the game. Scientists should be given a free hand and open road to explore, observe, test, refute, or confirm in a public forum, not given a marked deck of cards to play in some back alley secret society measured by who gets in and who stays out.


I followed the link by Frank K and found:
“Its fate will be crucial to Obama’s legacy, and it may give the U.S. added leverage at major climate negotiations next year in Paris.”
The USA and the EU are using climate change for their energy policy on the global arena. They fight China, India, and the bottom billion (as in SS Sahara) with the help of “climate change science”
I see it as a kind of Informal Imperialism. (

Pamela Gray

Apologies. Steven with a v.

Chuck Nolan

Peter Miller says:
May 17, 2014 at 11:14 am
Are there actually any ethical individuals amongst the alarmist climate scientists?
I doubt it.
Not when Peter Gleick and his ilk are proof the alarmist will lie, steal and destroy people’s careers for their cause.
They have no problem with this lack of professional ethics.
He’s a hero to the alarmists.
Are they helping to lift the world’s innocent poor out of harsh and very short lives due to energy poverty?
I wonder if alarmists just point and laugh at the suffering they cause?

A. Watts said,
“The events we witnessed this week are indications that academic bureaucracy and the small cadre of “team climate science” hasn’t learned one damn thing since Climategate. For them, it’s business as usual with impunity.”

– – – – – – – –
I concur, and to keep in perspective the situation, here are some words from more than 40 years ago before the ideology of CAGW became significant.

[T]here are, indeed, few things that are more frightening than the steadily increasing prestige of scientifically minded brain trusters in the councils of government during the last decades. The trouble is not that they are cold-blooded enough to “think the unthinkable,” but that they do not think.
Quoted from ‘On Violence’ (1970) by Hannah Arendt
“What I propose, therefore, is very simple: it is nothing more than to think what we are doing”
Quoted from the Prologue of book ‘The Human Condition’ (1958) by Hannah Arendt

Note: Hannah Arendt, whether one agreed with all of her prolific work, guaranteed a stimulation of fundamental discussions.

Jimmy Haigh.

“I wonder if alarmists just point and laugh at the suffering they cause?”
I think that ‘le mot de jour’ is: “prolly”…


In retrospect these numbskulls would have been far better off early on to share their data, engage in vigorous debate with critics, and resist the siren call of advocacy. First, they would be able to do their research rather than engage in these skirmishes. Second, by opening up the question of what causes the warming to more than CO2, they might have encouraged MORE funding to figure out what’s going on, or at least more lines or inquiry. Third, they would avoid the embarrassments they’ve inflicted on themselves. Fourth, a generally sympathetic public would not be growing more doubtful as their bad behavior becomes known. Fifth, their critics would have made their science better (iron sharpens iron as the aphorism says). Sixth, their legacy would have been more honorable than it’s turning out to be.

Steve Oregon

Steven Mosher says: May 17, 2014 at 10:58 am Overplaying the hand.
That’s such a common response by the government thug class. It comes in many forms of condescending poo pooing of resistance.
It’s the you’re overreacting, overplaying, anti-science, anti-government, small minded, backward thinking, unqualified, dubiously motivated, suspect intentions or any other marginalizing slap.
Anything to try and stifle the dissent while fluffing up their superior and institutionalized selves.
I bet Mosher enjoyed his little snipe with that stupid smirk on his face.

James Ard

This is a post for the ages. Next year, when the fraud has finally ground to a halt, the incurious reporters who never saw it coming can reference this post to figure out why it all went wrong.

Gunga Din

johnnyrvf says:
May 17, 2014 at 10:20 am
Demi-Clods! Very funny! Sadly the facism of the Klimate Klub is not.

Don’t you mean “Katastrophic Klimate Klub”?

John McClure

David L. Hagen posted this link on Climate Etc.
Its a great read from 2005.
“Michael Crichton’s testimony to the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works in 2005; vs Michael E. Mann”

Stephen Richards

Steven Mosher says:
May 17, 2014 at 10:58 am
Overplaying the hand.
Who? You ?

John McClure

Stephen Richards says:
May 17, 2014 at 1:03 pm
Steven Mosher says:
Overplaying the hand.
Steven Mosher is understating the situation.
Jump the Shark comes to mind.
Until evidence related to Dr. Bengtsson’s statements is made public, no conclusion should be drawn as to the true cause.
The Intimidation is clearly a legal matter before an English court. I’d be very careful not to turn the courts attention to you or any comment on this thread.


Do they learn how to goose-step in hobnail boots at their climate conferences?

F. Ross

Defenders of the Faith = CCCN: Climate Change Cosa Nostra (?)

Regarding coercion. Over here (EU) as from next year every new car by law must be fitted with a satellite transponder (for Galileo, the EU satNav+ system). It’ll cost at least £100. But here’s the real horror: unlike normal satnavs, this also controls your car’s ignition. Your car can be switched off at will via the satellite. They can track exactly where you are, what speed, how many miles you do etc (for which we shall doubtless be taxed).
I am certain, as the EU continues to falter, they will start rationing car use – for ‘planet saving’ reasons of course. You go to start your car – nothing happens, as they’ve switched you off. I live in the UK but our puppet ‘government’ cannot do anything about it.

John McClure

Philip Foster (Revd) says:
May 17, 2014 at 1:22 pm
I have to admit I love watching Top Gear. They routinely complain about silly standards but the coercion occurs at the top of the policy decision making.
You’re contending with compliance to policies.
LOL, love to see the Mann on the course for a run. : )

John McClure sez: “Until evidence related to Dr. Bengtsson’s statements is made public, no conclusion should be drawn as to the true cause.”
The IOP has already stated the true cause of ERL’s spiking the Bengtsson paper. “Summarising, the simplistic comparison of ranges from AR4, AR5, and Otto et al, combined with the statement 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.” Thus, in this referee’s view, it is an “error” to compare model predictions with observations.
For having the temerity to expose the models for what they are, Bengtsson is bullied into resigning from the GWPF. To liken this to McCarthyism is an injustice to McCarthy: there actually were communists in the State Dept.


Mann has chosen the wrong foe in his battle with Mark Steyn. Time after time before, Mann has used the threat of suit and actual law suits to silence critics. Steyn’s previous battles for free speech in Canada taught him that you can’t shut up.
I am supporting Steyn’s effort and I encourage each person here to do the same.*20d8b94cf50031447ae51bbc72a196e8a0b7&cert=gift

Bruce Cobb

Don’t forget Mann’s warning about Revkin to colleagues in one of the Climategate emails:
“p.s. be a bit careful about what information you send to Andy and what emails you copy him in on. He’s not as predictable as we’d like”
Controlling the message.

Jimmy Haigh. says:
May 17, 2014 at 11:23 am
Roger Sowell? I get you 100%.
I have absolutely no idea what Mosher is on about.
He likes to be cryptic &/or oblique. For whatever reason. Leaves me cold as well. Why bother?

Dean of umass to graduating class “climate change is the most important issue you will face” very low groan was heard coming from the grads, there is hope, but this is what our kids are being subjected to,along with the gov of mass saying the same. Outragous


John McClure

dynam01 says:
May 17, 2014 at 1:41 pm
With respect, I believe you are missing the point.
The top line take away is, reviewers are focused on or influenced by the political aspects instead of the science.
Wow, who knew, reviewers are human and are subject to influence both general and specific ; )
What’s your next expectation for “Review” and what made you change a statement because of IT to get a “passing grade”?
Unless you want more of this stupidity, isn’t it time to look closely at Legal standards and practices in science?

Chad Wozniak

At least a few of the political class are awakening to the implications of Obama’s war on energy, albeit it may be a matter of self-preservation for some: red-state Democrat Senators Manchin, Landrieu, Heitkamp. However, it seems to be emerging more and more purely as a Democrat/leftist/alarmist versus Republican/conservative/skeptic issue. This is apparent in conservative political blogs and on-line news zines, and Marco Rubio declared his skepticism last week. if the Republicans can make lower-income people understand that AGW advocacy hurts them first and worst, and at least some of the less environmentalists can be shown how much “renewable” energy really is dirtier and less sustainable than fossil fuels – which it certainly is, besides being a needless added cost – perhaps some resistance can be mounted.
And one state, at least – Wyoming – has banned the teaching of global warming in the schools. Hopefully others will follow, in the same way as some are now pushing back against gun control(Georgia and Missouri).
It is definitely heading towards a showdown between science and liberty, on the one hand, and tyranny and witchcraft on the other, and one that could ultimately be decided only by armed force.

Of course you guys have no idea.
Apply the tools of skepticism to the post. Then you will see. Dont expect me to do your work for you.
REPLY: Then don’t comment here any more Mr. Mosher, if all you want to offer is riddles while on the other hand constantly demanding others show all data and work. I don’t coddle such hypocrisy. If you want to explain please continue.
[added, people can’t use “tools of skepticism” to figure your position out, because you swing both ways] – Anthony

Reynolds over at Instapundit has this apercu: ‘If you want to be trusted as nonpolitical experts, don’t act like lying partisans.’. See: