From Climate Depot: Fired for ‘Diverging’ on Climate: Progressive Professor’s fellowship ‘terminated’ after WSJ OpEd calling global warming ‘unproved science’
Professor’s fellowship ‘terminated’ after WSJ OpEd declaring ‘the left wants to stop industrialization—even if the hypothesis of catastrophic, man-made global warming is false’. Prof. Caleb Rossiter: ‘Just two days after I published a piece in the Wall Street Journal calling for Africa to be allowed the ‘all of the above’ energy strategy we have in the U.S., the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) terminated my 23-year relationship with them…because my analysis and theirs ‘diverge.’
IPS email of ‘termination’ to Rossiter: ‘We would like to inform you that we are terminating your position as an Associate Fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies…Unfortunately, we now feel that your views on key issues, including climate science, climate justice, and many aspects of U.S. policy to Africa, diverge so significantly from ours’
In an exclusive interview with Climate Depot, Dr. Rossiter explained:
“If people ever say that fears of censorship for ‘climate change’ views are overblown, have them take a look at this: Just two days after I published a piece in the Wall Street Journal calling for Africa to be allowed the ‘all of the above’ energy strategy we have in the U.S., the Institute for Policy Studies terminated my 23-year relationship with them…because my analysis and theirs ‘diverge.’”
“I have tried to get [IPS] to discuss and explain their rejection of my analysis,’ Rossiter told Climate Depot. “When I countered a claim of ‘rapidly accelerating’ temperature change with the [UN] IPCC’s own data’, showing the nearly 20-year temperature pause— the best response I ever got was ‘Caleb, I don’t have time for this.’”
More here: http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/06/12/fired-for-diverging-on-climate-progressive-professors-fellowship-terminated-after-wsj-oped-calling-global-warming-unproved-science/
Then maybe the USA government under Obama, should break off diplomatic relations with Australia, because our current Prime Minister once called the science underpinning climate change “crap.” 🙂
Looking at the IPS web site shows that climate change is only a portion of what they are involved in. Social change and justice are major components. Was Rossiter,s main interest with IPS focused on social issues, global warming, or a combination. Does IPS require all members to never utter a contrary viewpoint that contradicts the IPS viewpoint? He was there for 23 years. This sounds like harsh punishment for the crime of having different thoughts.
I gather from this that the “Institute for Policy Studies” which no doubt counts itself as a “progressive” organisation apparently has racism and covert discrimination as one of its key policy planks.
No doubt also the Institute’s racial and discrimination policies will be directed toward those from other non white underdeveloped regions of the world who only want living standards similar to those enjoyed by the members of the Institute for Policy Studies.
Jim Ryan says: June 12, 2014 at 9:24 pm
“There is no injustice in cutting him off the payroll. He was paid to advocate a certain position, truth be damned, and he stopped doing his job.”
Was he paid? Their website says “Most work on a volunteer basis”.
Yes, I noticed that, too. The IPS probably fights poverty in Africa – unless such fight conflicts with a belief in CAGW.
‘rapidly accelerating’
Lots of laughs. Love the terms alarmists use. I’ve even seen ‘ever accelerating’, which is physically impossible.
Its not whether its true, but that it adds to the effect, and that the first term is redundant (kind of like wet water), and not even true. Gravity is a constant acceleration at 9.8m-2, but climate change can be linear, accelerating, rapidly accelerating, decelerating, rapidly decelerating, or pause/static. Moreover it can jump from one to another. The observations say pause, which isn’t rapidly accelerating, but this gets in the way of policy. What a laugh.
I’d say the good Professors credibility has just increased a hundred fold. He’s mailed exactly what is wrong with organisations like the IPS, and they hate him for it. As he was an ‘Associate’ of this pseudo-institute, I would doubt he was ever ‘remunerated’ beyond being able to claim some ‘expenses’ when he has done work on their behalf. That is how most ‘institutes’ work.
What it does expose is the ignorance of those who support these ‘Institutes’ whose agendas are blatantly political and unscientific. Good on the Professor.
‘Caleb, I don’t have time for this.’
As is, don’t confuse me with facts.
wobble says:
June 12, 2014 at 11:21 pm
goldminor says:
June 12, 2014 at 10:53 pm
Looking at the IPS web site shows that climate change is only a portion of what they are involved in. Social change and justice are major components.
Yes, I noticed that, too. The IPS probably fights poverty in Africa – unless such fight conflicts with a belief in CAGW.
_____
They fight poverty alright, via depopulation, and CAGW is the ‘scientific’ cover for it.
Skeptics want to fight poverty via economic growth.
The Green Khmer have a very sinister agenda to accomplish.
“Climate justice?”
Since they claim we have man made climate, when will they give me a warmer climate in Norway and maybe a colder elsewhere where it’s to warm?
It makes you wonder how many climate-change skeptics are pressured into keeping quiet, or who pretend to be part of the “consensus” just to protect their jobs and reputation. There’s no telling what lengths alarmists will go to just to punish those who dare point out how little science is actually behind their expensive, one-dimensional facade.
not being a rightwing CAGW sceptic myself (tho respectful of others’ viewpoints), i often draw attention to the same issues Rossiter focuses on in his WSJ article, because i believe there’s no point in simply speaking to politically like-minded folk.
i also draw attention to the MSM & the CAGW team (especially its psyops arm’s) attempts to portray CAGW scepticism as a rightwing thing,which they do in order to keep the left onside. so many people i know, whether left, independent, libertarian or whatever label u choose, are highly sceptical of CAGW, and we need to forget the political labels if we want to rescue the scientific method in the case of climate.
it would seem Rossiter actually made an impression at Australia’s The Conversation website,
(which is operated by The Conversation Media Group, a not-for-profit educational charity owned by The Conversation Trust, funded by the university and research sector, government and business). The Conversation is notorious for its CAGW advocacy, so i will add that nothing whatsoever came of Cory Zanoni, Community Manager at The Conversation’s promise to pass the Rosssiter article on to the editors “and see if anything comes of it”.
24 April: The Conversation: Cleaning up climate comments
As part of our approach to improving comments on The Conversation, we’re paying particular attention to comments on climate change.
We know comments on this topic can often be derailed, deliberately or otherwise…BLAH BLAH
Comment by Smudge Martens, engineer – about 1 month ago:
I realize that it’s late to comment on this issue. But my sense is that many people don’t understand what drives the typical liberal/progressive climate change skeptic. (I extend a courtesy by not employing the self-righteous and offensive “climate change denier” label.) Fewer than one person in 100,000 has the knowledge and experience to independently analyze the climate change debate; we choose “experts” whose analysis and attitudes resonate with a sense of competence and objectivity. For me that expert is Dr. James Lovelock of Gaia fame. In the last few years Dr. Lovelock has become concerned that the product of computer models and predictions have been lackluster. Like many progressive/liberals he’s concerned that the Climate Change issue ***may*** have been hijacked as a lever to pursue obvious political ideologies – as illustrated in this recent Wall Street Journal Opinion piece…
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303380004579521791400395288?mod=trending_now_3 …
comment by Cory Zanoni, Community Manager at The Conversation
Smudge –
Not late at all – I see everything that’s posted to these blogposts and we’re always tweaking our approach to moderation. It’s an open discussion, after all.
***You raise an interesting point (and an even more interesting article – I’ll pass it onto our editors and see if anything comes of it). The rationale behind a post is important and it’s something we need to keep in mind as we moderate. Thanks for raising the issue…
comment by Gordon Alderson, Management Consultant:
smudge –
Thank you so much for your comment and especially for including the link to Caleb Rossiter’s article.
I for one would welcome an opportunity to have a “Conversation” with others, including with Cory and the team at “The Conversation”, based on the Rossiter article.
http://theconversation.com/cleaning-up-climate-comments-25914
Hard to figure how leftists, claiming to care about third worlders, have consistently used climate as a stick to smash third world economic progress. Yes, yes, they are anti-capitalists first, but you would think they might care SOMETHING about the lives of the poor. But no, they never actually do. It is all moral posturing with no actual substance.
You’d think the obvious dishonesty of it would discomfit their moral narcissism. It is a strange kind of brain that is all about pretending to care, but actually doesn’t. All for what? This is it. This is all they do, and its just one big self-contradictory imposture.
It’s as irrational as the kids walking around with their pants falling down. They do it because they have been doing it, and other people do it, and within their circles it is seen as the thing to do, but at no point is it ever anchored to any real world rationale. All it does is impose big and obvious real world costs, but somehow it continues. The disconnect from reality is so complete that something very costly that has absolutely no upside just continues apace as if it made perfect sense.
IPS website
I just thought of something extraordinarily trivial. Take the IPS and add a little slanted line under one of the letters. You know which one.
The important and not trivial point, however, is that the rot comes from the top. If the organizations at the very top echelons of society can do it, well then, everybody can. We know what’s been done at the IRS. We know what’s been done to the AP. We know none of the dozens of survivors of Benghazi have ever been spoken to. We know about extraordinary FBI scrutiny of political opponents over trivial matters.
And what happens at the very top filters down as it has here. Human progress stagnates. Standards vary between those connected and those who aren’t. Useful talents are suppressed if they’re a threat. If society doesn’t unravel then at best it becomes tenuously civil with misdirected simmering anger.
The political left owes some very big apologies to society. But first they have to recognize they owe them. Otherwise it becomes too late.
Alec Rawls says:
June 13, 2014 at 12:23 am
Hard to figure how leftists, claiming to care about third worlders,
————-
If the Third worlders had access to energy in the same volume we have, very soon there would be no third worlders and no need for the organisations that ‘protect’ them.
Funny old world?
‘Climate justice’, as prescribed by the Climate Inquisition.
“No dissenting views permitted, reality checks not allowed, all must be subservient to our interpretations – or else!”
Such is climate science today, where biased computer models and dodgy dogma always trump real life observations.
That is how consensus is made.
Despite the USA being the land of the free and the home of the brave, that concept doesn’t seem to extend to the IPS. Such behaviour has all the hallmarks of socialism gone to extremes.
Unfortunately the extreme left wing Greens agenda is not confined to the USA. In Australia members of the former Communist Party of Australia joined the Greens after the Soviet Union collapsed and are now in Parliament pushing their agenda. We call them Watermelons for good reason. Green on the outside, red on the inside. Modern day Communism in disguise.
I thought McCarthy got rid of Commies in the USA in the 1950’s but perhaps they have made a comeback and are now embedded in your Government. Tough luck for you!
Perhaps it’s the beginning of the end for democracy and freedom of speech in the USA?
Is it worth fighting for? Maybe. Maybe not. Are you Brave? Are you Free? Do you want to stay that way? It’s up to you. Your future is in your hands.
Friends:
Several people have asserted in this thread that promotion of the AGW-scare is motivated by opposition to ‘third word development’ or to ‘capitalism’. There are many clear motivations for promotion of the scare but I see no evidence that those oppositions are significant reasons for the promotion.
Decades of attempt to assuage the scare have convinced me that what some see as opposition to ‘third word development’ or to ‘capitalism’ are – in reality – opposition to industrialisation. The opponents are a modern form of Luddites and include people with a distorted and romantic view of ‘natural’ existence in the days when slaves fulfilled the functions now performed by machines.
The people who hold these anti-industrial views may not be evil, but implementing their views has evil effects.
Richard
You have a point, richardscourtney.
TimB says:
June 12, 2014 at 9:27 pm
Climate justice?
=====================
In leftist Newspeak, “climate justice” means that affluent countries must atone for their immoral use of fossil fuels by having poor people in rich countries pay carbon taxes to rich dictators in poor countries so the rich dictators can further oppress the poor people thereby making them poorer…
I know the logic seems a bit flawed, but that’s only because it is…
John Of Cloverdale WA, Australia says:
June 12, 2014 at 10:45 pm
As an Australian, I would like to see that. The US actualy needs Australia more than Australia needs the US. Don’t let WW2 fool you. The americans ‘rescued Australia from the japanes for their own needs , not Australia’s needs. Our successive governments have been sucking up to the yanks ever since. Mind you, I do have many cool american friends but I can’t stand the ‘Americanisation’ of the world.
I don’t know whether this was a paid post or not. I suspect it wasn’t. Clubs have rules, you toe their line. If you don’t want to then find another club.
I wonder if GWPF are looking for a new associate. I heard they had a vacancy.
@- Richard Courtney
“Decades of attempt to assuage the scare have convinced me that what some see as opposition to ‘third word development’ or to ‘capitalism’ are – in reality – opposition to industrialisation. ”
I think that it is even more specific than that.
It is an opposition to industrialisation by increasing use of fossil fuels.
First such a program is inherently impossible because there just are not enough fossil fuels for the whole population to enjoy using European levels of fossil fuel per capita, never mind US levels.
Second industrialisation using fossil fuels risks making the changes to the atmospheric chemistry and physics even greater with increasingly uncertain outcomes in relation to climate, ocean acidification and sea level rise.
I don’t think there are many who oppose increasing fossil fuel use who are really advocating a return to Arcadian slavery. Most would like to see the underdeveloped world progress through the use of energy source which do not do long term damage to the stability of the climate that has allowed us to develop civilisation over the last six millennia. Renewables, hydro, geothermal nuclear etc would all be acceptable alternatives for most.
It’s an ‘ Anything but fossil fuel’ approach in opposition to the ‘ Nothing but fossil fuel’ approach.
The middle gets excluded and both ‘sides’ are unhappy with places like China that are continuing to use coal to expand their power generation, but are placing constraints on its use and prioritising renewables, nuclear and reduced consumption through efficiencies.