Bishop Hill notes: “Swedish website Uppsalainitiativet has managed to get a guest post from Lennart Bengtsson in which he examines the recent furore over his brief involvement with GWPF and explains his views on climate science.”
Well worth a read.
What is perhaps most worrying is the increased tendency of pseudo-science in climate research. This is revealed through the bias in publication records towards only reporting results that support one climate hypothesis, while refraining from publishing results that deviate. Even extremely cold weather, as this year’s winter in north Eastern USA and Canada, is regarded as a consequence of the greenhouse effect.
Were Karl Popper alive today we would certainly have met with fierce critique of this behavior. It is also demonstrated in journals’ reluctance to address issues contradicting simplified climate assessments, such as the long period during the last 17 years with insignificant or no warming over the oceans, and the increase in sea-ice cover around the Antarctic. My colleagues and I have been met with scant understanding when trying to point out that observations indicate lower climate sensitivity than model calculations indicate. Such behavior may not even be intentional but rather attributed to an effect that my colleague Hans von Storch calls a social construct.
Source: http://uppsalainitiativet.blogspot.se/2014/05/guest-post-by-lennart-bengtsson-my-view.html?m=1
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The Alarmists made a major tactical error with Bengtsson, as his subsequent public criticism of the IPCC-backed approach is pretty harsh, and he’s too high-profile to sweep under the carpet.
I have just written a blog post of my own on Bengtsson: http://jonathanabbott99.wordpress.com/2014/05/22/scientists-one-by-one/
The point I make is that although CAGW is now mainly a political issue, politicians will not backtrack on Green-inspired policies until a critical mass is reached of respectable scientists that disavow the IPCC. The politicians need a creditable ‘side’ to choose in the scientific debate. We are getting closer to that all the time: I wonder which scientist will be next to enter the fray?
Bengtsson had to be destroyed. Not only was he opening up a dialogue with the climate skeptics, which meant he was straying away from the teachings of the one true church, but he’d also called into serious question the ability of the computer models to generate credible climate predictions.
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2014/05/22/the-age-of-unenlightenment/
Pointman
Knowingly or not, the use of the term “denier” in the climate war zone is anti-Semitic hate speech and should be labeled as such.
Pointman says:
May 22, 2014 at 9:25 am
Great article Pointman, when do you think we get to the “acceptance” stage of the dying AGW movement for believers?
That is one way to create a “theory”. Ignore any contradictory data and facts.
The elder seems to be doing a good job of destroying himself. Spinning round so fast, he’s getting dizzy. What more sweet meats might he provide?
REPLY: Well, your like minded friends have certainly done far worse, with having to suck up to “big oil” and promise to hide it.
– Anthony
The skeptical science kidz are there in the comments, ignoring his point about social constructs and arguing that he’s wrong about climate change and severe weather. I’m trying to decide if there’s any value in engaging over there, or if I’d just be driving my blood pressure up to no purpose.
Did I miss it or has Prof. Bengtsson released his paper so we can judge for ourselves.
CACA has corrupted even the philosophy of science, such that the ilk of Mosher & Oreskes challenge Feynman & Popper in their attempts to discredit skepticism, peddling the new, anti-scientific method doctrine of consensus.
Mark Bofill says:
May 22, 2014 at 9:48 am
I doubt SkS will get much traction at Bishop Hill’s site. Few fools there. If you comment, stay classy and ignore their responses.
No, I meant at Uppsalainitiativet, not Bishop Hill. 🙂
“Acceptance” will be when they simply stop talking about it.
You can see some of that happening in the fight against fracking in the US; although some activists are still trying to make noise about it, for all practical purposes the fight is over and fracking has won. And the evidence is that no one except the fringes is talking about it anymore. (New York State is an exception; but that’s only 1 out of 50, and it’s an outlier)
Succinct and most importantly, dead on accurate!
Agenda driven science, is not science.
I still think we should crowd source, or perhap a better term would be crowd fund, litigation against the perpetrators. Any Attorneys want to make a name for themselves? Here is your chance!
Stopping this CAGW madness needs to start somewhere. Why not here?
Step up as he did, or just shut up, is the motto.
Whining behind a keyboard does nothing to cure the illness and it is quite obvious that climate science is very near a terminally ill stage.
Regards Ed
{all bold emphasis mine – JW}
– – – – – – – – – – –
This is a keeper line for independent intellectuals everywhere.
I want to make it clear that I am also a sworn enemy of what Bengtsson called “the social construction of natural science” which I call physical science merely a servant of post-modern subjectivism.
John
ossqss says:
May 22, 2014 at 10:13 am
No litigation will help as whole system of “organized” science funding and publication of the scientific results is rotten to the foundation. It was never good in the first place; however, at least it was not organized and thus was some diversity and competition of ideas. Today, the organized science behaves in similar corrupt ways and litigating against several crooks is like fighting Lernaean Hydra.
More effective approach will be to disband all funding agencies. Let reduce taxes and give incentive to the private industries to fund scientific progress.
Walt, if nothing is done, it is free reign time to bully anyone else into submission that the climate bullies choose. If there is no consequense for bad behavior, it perpetuates itself until it experiences and intervention. You don’t get to the funding unless you expose those who get the funding, for what they are and the threatening tactics they use. Let alone the slander.
Would you take your approach if someone bullied your family members or friends?
In most legal worlds, if you create apprehension through your actions against someone, you are guilty of assault. This is a prime example of how threats changed behavior and a cogniative choice out of fear for ones well being.
This is a crime in most countries and should be viewed as such.
Regards Ed
in the same way as those in flip flops can defeat a highly resourced army so can a few people defeat the multi billion pound hockey stick programme with nothing but the truth
I left a message explaining that “denier” was not a reference to the work of Freud, as someone suggested. The message got removed and anything I send since disappears.
Yet another crusading echo chamber.
Greg,
======
I left a message explaining that “denier” was not a reference to the work of Freud, as someone suggested. The message got removed and anything I send since disappears.
======
Yes this is ‘revisionism’ at it’s worse. It is well understood that it is a comparison to holocaust deniers. That some should now try to ‘re-frame’ it in a psychological context shows their ‘leftist’ leanings and the ‘tools’ typical employed by that group.
I believe the few early uses actually stated this comparison explicitly so there could be no doubt. It would be good to find such a quote, although i guess since posts are deleted it may be pointless to post it there.
Bengtsson had to be silenced by the CAGW because his push for more responsible climate science discourse threatens many the Billions in Euros (€) and USD ($) currently being spent on wind and solar projects across Europe, both directly and in government subsidies.
That kind of entrenched big-money Green power interests felt threatened and thus they responded, as Dr Bengtsson wrote, “The low-point is probably having been labeled “world criminal” by a representative of the English wind power-industry.”
Hence the need for, as Obama put it, “the debate is over..” to silence further heretical discussions.
@Mark Bofill
yep – I looked at the comments there too – I just decided it was likely a waste of time and effort, the second comment by some geezer Roger Benagfre or somesuch was a hoot! I must confess that the latter part of Bengstsson’s text seemed a little inchoerent – but I suppose we must make allowance for translation?
The issue still remains that the good Prof took a scientific stand – and an open/transparent stand at that, but because it questioned the ‘party line’ he was railroaded because of it – that should NEVER happen in science. Sure, you can be laughed at, ridiculed even, but one should never be ousted because of a skeptical view. On the contrary, one would assume that the ‘believers’ would want to convince the ‘non-believers’ by showing them the ‘proof’ rather than sidelining them, especially those with influence!…….. (of course, in the absence of such ‘proof’ – therein lies the problem for all us skeptics!)
Kev-in-Uk,
I agree. It’s sad but unsurprising to me that the commenters all appear to miss or ignore his point.
Ah well.
.Interesting commentary at the blog where this was published: “Anonymous” commented
And sure enough some idiot had to take up the challenge:
Um… speaking of false analogies. CO2 and cigarette smoke?
Otherwise rational people say very strange things when it comes to their belief systems.
such as the long period during the last 17 years with insignificant or no warming over the oceans, and the increase in sea-ice cover around the Antarctic
=====
I’m not correcting him…because he’s right
It just seems that if ocean temps stayed the same…so would the ice
But yet, sea ice has massively increased…….which has to mean ocean temps have drastically gone down
( and yes, I do understand Antarctic currents, heat hiding in the deep oceans, and fresh water runoff)
Please go ahead and make some comments on that blog.
Living in Sweden with our left wing, green MSM is a royal PITA.
Not a single swedish media has reported on Lennart Bengtsson leaving GWPF, can you believe it.
Mark Bofill, dont feed the trolls at Uppsalainitiativet.
They are socialist warmists that censor 9 out of 10 submissions from sceptics.
I have tried reasoning with them but they are a cult, a sect, its no use.
They can also be pretty nasty at a personal level, especially Olle Häggström.
Leave them alone is my advice, in sweden we dont engage with them anymore, it is pointless, like discussing evolution with a Jehovas witness.