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/
I suspect this paragraph in his WSJ article was the straw that broke the camels back:
The left wants to stop industrialization–even if the hypothesis of catastrophic, man-made global warming is false. John Feffer, my colleague at the Institute for Policy Studies, wrote in the Dec. 8, 2009, Huffington Post that “even if the mercury weren’t rising” we should bring “the developing world into the postindustrial age in a sustainable manner.” He sees the “climate crisis [as] precisely the giant lever with which we can, following Archimedes, move the world in a greener, more equitable direction.”
{All bold emphasis mine – JW}
– – – – – – – –
Rossiter’s use of left terminology throughout his WSJ OpEd leaves us with the question he illogically was begging. That question is, left as opposed to what? He seems to illogically presume in the WSJ OpEd that the left is the whole context for all solutions. He implies that even when the left is in error, the correction of the error should be a ‘left’ solution.
Intellectual myopia.
John
Here he explains in his own words.
(My LAST Piece on “Climate Change,” I Promise)
The Debate is finally over on “Global Warming” – Because Nobody will Debate
http://www.calebrossiter.com/Last%20Climate.html
Not surprising, unfortunately…
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
===========
forget the second point. the first point explains the true fear behind AGW. Competition for resources. Africa must be prevented from industrialization with fossil fuels, else there will not be enough to maintain our lifestyle. Having got theirs, the rich want to protect themselves from the poor.
the reality however is much different. Coal is found just about everywhere if you look for it. there is no danger in running out of coal in the foreseeable future, unless it is artificially constrained by economic and political means. the most obvious route is for the World Bank to deny loans for coal powered electrification.
The first step is the announced US energy policy restricting CO2 emissions for power plants. The problem is that the US invariably tries to export its laws and regulations to the world, via its dominant position on international organizations. If it is illegal in the US, then the US acts as though it should be illegal everywhere. If it is legal in the US, then the US acts as though it should be legal everywhere. There is very much a “we know better than you” approach in US foreign policy, which can be very harmful in countries where “one size does not fit all”.
Good example of how that 97% consensus is achieved.
‘My wife-beating husband is complaining that I told the papers about his wife beating’.
Don’t complain about his wife beating. Leave him. Find a better husband. Be happy.
It isn’t plausible that for all those years Rossiter didn’t know that the IPS preferred position advocacy to genuine inquiry.
Nick, thanks for pointing out that he may not have been paid.
McCarthyism is alive alive and well.
Haven’t read all the comments, so someone may have said this already, but IPS is a venerable leftist think tank in DC dedicated to spreading Marxist propaganda around the world. It’s hardly surprising and entirely justifiable given their mission that they would eject anyone who doesn’t toe the party line.
richardscourtney says:
June 13, 2014 at 1:31 am
Friends:
……..”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.”
Perhaps not evil but most certainly ignorant. The quality and length of life has improved tremendously from those “natural existence days” when an impacted wisdom tooth or other minor infection could kill you. And certainly hypocritical unless these folks refrain from use of modern medicine, automobiles, private jets, etc. Perhaps there lies the evil, in their hypocracy. Modern day Scribes, Pharisees and money changers to be driven from the Temple.
I understand why Rossiter would be canned for going against his organization. However, the name of the organization is now seen to belie its purpose. Institute for Policy Studies. The studies are being done to see how they can shape situations and events to fit a pre-conceived set of policies. They don’t go for the analyses that may show the policies are founded in wrong science. I’m sure Rossiter knew what he was doing and this was his way to resign.
Climate justice = Communism
Nice to see the Reds er.. the Greens coming out of the closet.
@- Richard Drake re Thomas Sowell reference: Arthur C Brooks, ‘Who Really Cares’
Ed Chombeau says:
June 13, 2014 at 6:36 am
When in the “Vatican of Climate”; you better act like a Catholic—my analogy.
============
Nicely said.
Gave me a chuckle.
Equally important, we should be making sure citizens are equipped with cheap energy sufficient for cold weather in the mid-latitudes, in addition to such energy for industrialization purposes in 3rd world countries. One thing about cold, it kills the rich and the poor alike. Global warming proponents will rue the day they smugly directed 3rd world countries to do without cheap efficient (high btu source) energy. Karma’s a bitch. But she’s mother nature’s bitch.
In the middle of a hard drought, there is a hard freeze in Oregon tonight!!!!!
http://forecast.weather.gov/wwamap/wwatxtget.php?cwa=wrh&wwa=freeze warning
From Patrick Maher on June 13, 2014 at 4:37 am:
Paula Dean didn’t make a racist comment, she used a term that was common back then without animus. I just saw Guess Who’s Coming To Dinner? for the first time a year ago, by chance on TV. There was a very strong anti-racism message, yet “negroes” was commonly used. No one thought anything about it, I’ve seen it on other old shows.
I expect that movie will hit the “BANNED for Excessive Racism” list where it can join Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer, unless modern CGI can dub in an “appropriate” replacement.
As for Sterling, as he was diagnosed with early Alzheimer disease that means the NBA has harshly penalized him for being mentally ill and disabled, he wasn’t responsible. Beyond basing their judgment on an illegal recording that would be inadmissible in court, they beat up an disabled elderly man with ongoing brain damage.
Caleb,
If you were associated with the Institute for Policy Studies for 23 years, you probably would have become aware, at some point, of their extremely radical, anti-American, Politically Correct Progressive attacks on Normal-America and capitalism.
Lots of information available:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Institute_for_Policy_Studies
The IPS’s own website boasts: “As Washington’s first progressive multi-issue think tank, the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS) has served as a policy and research resource for visionary social justice movements for over four decades — from the anti-war and civil rights movements in the 1960s to the peace and global justice movements of the last decade. Some of the greatest progressive minds of the 20th and 21st centuries have found a home at IPS…”
When you’re affiliated with an organization like that for 23 years, you shouldn’t be surprised at their belief system, or their PC-Prog actions.
Kent Clizbe
http://www.kentclizbe.com
– – – – – – – –
While I find Rossiter’s political context / terminology illogical and question begging, I think he does address a most important ethical issue.
It is profoundly immoral to act (for whatever reason) to prevent a people’s voluntary efforts to achieve the life promoting and wealth enhancing benefits of using freely traded capital on widespread technology (aka: market capitalized full industrialization).
I sincerely ask, is this profoundly immoral position found most predominately in what Rossiter refers to as the left? If so then what is specifically the phenomena called the ‘left’ using basic language? That is not a rhetorical question, clarity on this is important to expose immorality using basic language.
John
John,
Great observation and question.
Terminology is the tool that we can use to define and understand our opponents and their belief system.
Calling them “the Left” does not provide clarity. “The Left” is a relative term–as opposed to “the Right.”
Extremists who advocate for extreme measures to destroy capitalist economies, using the excuse of Man-caused Global Warming, are not “the left.” In order to understand them, the key is to categorize their actions and the effects of their actions. In short, the fanatics are anti-capitalists. They are not “for” anything–their rhetoric does not actually advocate for anything–they are only “against” capitalist economic activity.
So, the terminology question requires that we identify the basis of these extremist anti-capitalists’ belief system. I just happen to have researched this issue–my research question was: Where did Political Correctness come from?
Analysis of the spectrum of Politically Correct Progressive activists’ messages led to a summary of PC. They believe that: “America is a racist, sexist, homophobic, foreigner-hating, imperialist, capitalist hell-hole. And it must be changed.”
Those two sentences contain the essence of every PC-Progressive message.
So, the terminology that best captures our opponents’ beliefs is: Politically Correct Progressives (PC-Progs). This encompasses the AGW cult, the Occupy Wall St rabble, and every other anti-Normal movement. Hope that helps.
This short video provides more details: http://willingaccomplices.com/willing_accomplices/videos
Reblogged this on Public Secrets and commented:
This reminds me of the savaging of Dr. Lennart Bengtsson in Europe, because he had committed the sin of working with reasonable climate-change skeptics. There’s a new Lysenkoism rising, and it’s threatening the integrity of science, itself.
Mario Lento says:
June 13, 2014 at 6:47 am
“… So many scenarios are possible. For instance, he may have believed in their charter until he started to realize their charter was flawed and openly spoke out about the flaws. …”
_______________________
Mario,
You have touched on something very important. We all make mistakes and learn and then move on.
On the one hand, I don’t like to see intolerance for other viewpoints and trying to limit debate. On the other, I see their point if he disagreed with the foundation on too many issues, why would they continue to support him with a fellowship? I assume this had a small stipend with it, but maybe not. If you read (IIRC) what he wrote, it seems he named one of the other fellows at the foundation by name, quoted him, disagreed with him publicly in the WSJ and in the same few sentences, used the term “leftists”. So this may also have to do with his ability to work with other people there effectively.
Prof. Caleb Rossiter,
Hold your head up and walk proud, Citizen!
By your honesty, you are confirmed as a man of integrity and self respect!
This is a choice we all face:
Tell the truth and live with the consequences, or
Lie to keep a job, friends, money and/or status.
Self respect drives us to the first choice.
Self esteem may lead us to the latter choice.
The two terms are not synonymous.
Mac
A little looking into Caleb Rossiter’s background reveals why he has kept his IPS affiliation. He is against American imperialism.
http://www.calebrossiter.com/
But he also seems to be consistent in his efforts against AGW alarmism. His article in 2010:
Climate Catastrophe: Convenient Fibs and Dangerous Prescriptions
http://calebrossiter.com/Climate%202010.html
“The left’s skepticism seems to have deserted it on climate change. Far from questioning authority, leftists are among the leaders in proclaiming climate catastrophe, based on a reverential reference to the IPCC and “the scientists” who spin off far more alarming scenarios. They have abandoned their stock in trade, the diligent digging into research claims on, say, military strategy in Afghanistan or export-led growth in Africa, to uncover self-serving misrepresentations and unlikely simplifications. Why is this the case? Why are the leftists happily hopping into bed with Al Gore, a Dixie whom they have fought on foreign and military policy from the MX missile to aid to the Salvadoran army to landmines? Why do they ostracize as firmly as the Democratic Party any contrary conclusions, or even questions that might lead to them?
“The answer is that for the left global warming is the perfect storm, a rare chance to find common cause with the American mainstream on policies that will achieve long-sought goals. The consensus about the dangers of climate change is a welcome license to dismember the carbon-driven capitalism that many on the left see as the source of numerous political and social ills, from poverty to dictatorship in developing countries, and from the income gap to ostentatious consumption in the developed world. In addition, the leftist wing of the “green” movement that began in the 1970’s in Europe and the United States has always had an apocalyptic streak, a fear that population, consumption, and development are unsustainable and tending toward disaster. As John Feffer of the Institute for Policy Studies has written: “Cutting back on consumption, reducing fossil-fuel use, bringing the developing world into the post-industrial age in a sustainable manner: Even if the mercury weren’t rising, these are critical goals. The climate crisis is precisely the giant lever with which we can, following Archimedes, move the world in a greener, more equitable direction.” (4)”