Scientists 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.
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)
![IMG_20131209_131354[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/img_20131209_1313541.jpg?quality=83)
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:
Andy:
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?
Michael
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/191241/climate-scientist-andy-revkin-we-can-no-longer-trust-you-steven-f-hayward
==========================================================
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:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Chad Wozniak says:
May 17, 2014 at 2:54 pm
==========
Why does anyone find this topic hard to understand?
We have a handful of scientists who have decided the Law doesn’t apply to them.
This isn’t a tough situation to fix?
Chad Wozniak says: May 17, 2014 at 2:54 pm
“And one state, at least – Wyoming – has banned the teaching of global warming in the schools. Hopefully others will follow…
It is definitely heading towards a showdown between science and liberty…
Yes…
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.
Their problem is a difficult one – what happens when their framework doesn’t match reality?
The next President with an R after his name must demand
I think you would do better with an “L”. But that is a long ways off.
Leave it to Stokes to pick up Mosher’s yokes,…..
Otherwise known as “obfuscating on thin ice”.
Belief in one’s chosen satan, be it the warmists’ human-CO2 or the conservatives’ public school Common Core, is everywhere.
Re: common core. You are confusing models with reality. The standards may be excellent – their implementation may be something else. And in fact is.
M Simon says:
May 17, 2014 at 3:14 pm
Depends upon the R, some of whom are small L libertarians. And upon the L. Libertarian Presidential candidate Gary Johnson opposed mandatory cap & trade, but “believes” in “climate change”. That might mean nothing more than being convinced that man-made CO2 can affect atmospheric temperature.
He wrote this on Reddit:
Government exists to protect us against individuals, groups, and corporations that would do us harm. Rules and regulations should exist to accommodate this. The EPA protects us against those that would pollute, and without them a lot more polluters would be allowed to pollute.
Maybe I’m one of the few but I enjoy kim’s comments on Climate Etc.
This is about a very General issue not your pet peeve in the specifics.
The Methodology either works or it doesn’t. The Methodology is key to all the silly rants about specifics.
“Stay Focused My Friends” ; )
The further along the weather proceeds to fail the models and the louder the CAGW media and academic machines scream at the public while beheading scientists and journalists seeking truth via the scientific method and fact checking , there will come a time/moment when vast numbers of the public will become very angry. I do not know anyone who likes being lied to by their trusted authorities. The noble cause lies as justified by the “cause” will surely cause a vast rejection of support for both the academic institutions and government agencies found guilty of fraud, coercion, threats of violence, termination of employment, ruination of careers etc. of honest scientists and reporters. I agree this is war. The bankroll behind all this action must be exposed. Then we can all see who and what is driving this war against science and free thinking and self determination. I have plenty of popcorn at the ready!
re: Mosher’s comment: I took it that he was commenting on the post immediately prior to his comment, which spoke of POTUS plans to crackdown on coal, but who knows, Steven certainly hasn’t been forthcoming.
Frank K. says:
May 17, 2014 at 10:57 am
You can easily prove the hypocrisy of the PTB by comparing the fates of two virtually identical islands – The Maldives and Diego Garcia. The Maldivans are poster children for global warming but only a few hundred miles away on the same continental shelf at the same height above sea all the Chagossians were forcibly removed from their homeland.
Nick Stokes says:
May 17, 2014 at 3:09 pm
Chad Wozniak says: May 17, 2014 at 2:54 pm
“And one state, at least – Wyoming – has banned the teaching of global warming in the schools. Hopefully others will follow…
It is definitely heading towards a showdown between science and liberty…
Yes…
More like “speculative extrapolation by models” vs. Liberty. Calling it science is misleading at best.
It’s not hard to figure out what side you are Nick. No need to fill us in.
The campaign of intellectual thugs against skeptical scientists would not succeed were it not for cowardly publishers, journal editors who do not have the courage of their convictions, and the willful silence of the major scientific organizations. It’s a perfect storm of failed principle.
If or when the heated demonizations of AGW-skeptical scientists leads to a physical attack in public or at home, exacted by some eco-nutter for ‘waging war against the earth’ or ‘crimes against humanity,’ the fault will lay right at the feet of these people and these organizations. They had the chance to exercise their moral backbones and signally failed to do so.
And it’s all so obvious and banal. Hannah Arendt described it in Germany. Robert Conquest described it in the Soviet Union. It was on display in Mao’s Cultural Revolution, and goes on right now in North Korea. Exclusion, degradation, dehumanization, execution. It all follows. If we’re lucky, we’ll avoid any instance of that last. But we’re now being nibbled around step three.
Eric Barnes says: May 17, 2014 at 6:48 pm
“More like “speculative extrapolation by models” vs. Liberty.”
And Liberty is where you go to jail for teaching global warming?
Nick Stokes says:
May 17, 2014 at 7:08 pm
And Liberty is where you go to jail for teaching global warming?
Very nice. You always manage to exceed expectations.
I don’t think you people understand where this is going, or see what is happening rapidly all around you. Where before there was talk about how “skeptics” were bad and should be punished, now there is a regular movement where “undesirables” of all kinds are fired and then blackballed, businesses boycotted, and other actual hostile actions are taking place, simply because of people exercising their freedom of speech. It has gone from mere talk to literal outright war. War, you say, how can this be called war? One word, blockade, a tactic in war where you hurt the enemy by economic means.
This is now seen not just aimed at skeptics, but at people who write undesirable books (ones that, for instance, don’t agree with the gay agenda), who publish games (one game has now apologized for only including male and female in it’s options), at people who have large and successful businesses (they are trying to starve out farms from “large agribusinesses” in California simply because they are large, that being their only excuse), at anyone who says anything they don’t like even privately ( see Stern, and even Sterns wife, who did not say anything of the kind, simply because her name is Stern), in short, the idea of boycott and firing for using your freedom of speech is rapidly gaining acceptance and is being practiced right now.
Is it really that bad, will it all blow away? Well, has this sort of thing happened before, and how did that come out? First, a little tidbit from the french revolution:
Prior to the bloody Terror of ’93, in the Republic of Letters there was, from 1765 to 1780, a dry terror of which the Encyclopedia was the Committee of Public Safety and d’Alembert was the Robespierre. It mowed down reputations as the other chopped off heads: its guillotine was defamation, “infamy” as it was then called: The term, originating with Voltaire [écrasez l’infâme!], was used in the provincial societies with legal precision. “To brand with infamy” was a well-defined operation consisting of investigation, discussion, judgment, and finally execution, which meant the public sentence of “contempt.”
So we see that it has happened before, and led to “The Terror” with executions, followed by dictatorship and war. But perhaps that was just a one off? Well, it happened again in Germany, first there was talk, then ostracizing, then bricks thrown through windows and book burnings, then being forced to wear a mark, then death camps. In short, this won’t end well unless we end it now.
Is what they are doing right now really that bad? Well, then you don’t understand that being boycotted or fired makes it impossible to feed a family. In other words, they want to hurt children. They are, therefore, CHILD ABUSERS and should be treated as such.
Whenever, you see this happening, by anyone, anywhere, for any reason (any boycotting or firing for free speech) tell them this:
Do you still abuse children?
I mean, you do know that boycotting or firing will mean that they can no longer feed their family, their children, don’t you?
Is that what you want?
Do you like to see children homeless and starving, does it make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside?
And you not only want to hurt the person who, dare I say it, exercised their freedom of speech to say something you don’t like, you also want to hurt the whole business, even people who didn’t say anything, so that those people also are unable to feed their families, due to being out of work?
You must really like hurting children.
So, I’ll ask you again…
DO YOU STILL ABUSE CHILDREN.
And if they continue with their boycott or firings, or agree that such is a good thing, treat them exactly like you would anyone you find abusing a child, for that is what they are doing. Make sure everyone around them finds out what a wonderful human being they are. You shouldn’t just not associate with them, you should actively appose them. If they speak, shout them down, that is what they do, now it’s your turn.
We were tolerant, thinking that they would return the favor, thinking that it was the right thing to do. Now they have shown us that tolerance was the furthest thing from their minds. They have shown that tolerance is no longer a virtue. They have shown that they want war. Fine, give ’em war. Remember, war does not decide who is right, war decides who is left.
Too much, too extreme? Well then you tell me exactly how being fired and boycotted will not hurt the children. And what do you do when they want to hurt your children, or any children, do you just stand around and fidget? They say that all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing, I say, if they do nothing, they are neither good, nor are they men.
Steve Oregon says:
May 17, 2014 at 11:52 am
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.
+10000 and I put the comment up for repeat ;>)
@legatus –
I agree, we can’t tolerate the level of intolerance now coming from the AGW crowd and from the left in general.
So what does a climate realist do?
Fold or make a move.
I don’t know about anyone else, but I am tired of the perpetual hype.
I got questions from my , near 90 year old, mother about the glaciers in antarctical this week.
That is just wrong.
And the report she saw on CNN was just wrong.
But yet it sunk in as fact and it was not!
You cannot counteract such propaganda without organization.
Why do you smart Cats avoid such?
Who is going to do it for you lazy people?
It is your life these unfacts impacts, no?
You gonna fix it on your own?
Think about it……..
Very interesting, inspiring post by Anthony.
Interesting history lesson about the French Revolution from Legatus. The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.
I hope that Mosher is not banned because he is sometimes cryptic.
Other thuggery includes the likes of WH Science advisor Holdren to hold a veto on the purse strings at the NSF vis-a-vis grants.
i.e. If you don’t follow the orthodoxy (AGW), there are subtle ways to ensure your next grant renewal package gets a low score.
— ossqss says:
May 17, 2014 at 8:37 pm
So what does a climate realist do?
Fold or make a move.
I don’t know about anyone else, but I am tired of the perpetual hype.
I got questions from my , near 90 year old, mother about the glaciers in antarctical this week.
That is just wrong.
And the report she saw on CNN was just wrong.
But yet it sunk in as fact and it was not!
You cannot counteract such propaganda without organization. —
Look, this kind of thing has been going on for a long time.
News was scaring people about the new Ice age in 1970’s.
But as general rule, if reporters lips are moving they are lying- or what applies to politicians
also applies news people. But also news reporter are less informed about everything which vaguely important so they in addition tend to be dumber then typical politicians.
So they lying and they are stupid and they are constantly distracted by all kinds of nonsense.
So limit your time watching them.
Find a hobby. Read better fiction. Breathe.
After reading the climate gate leaks it’s more flavor of the concerned political activists?
Steven Mosher says:
May 17, 2014 at 2:56 pm
Of course you guys have no idea.
==============================
How could when dealing with an ego as inflated as yours, Mr. Mosher?