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/
Jim Ryan description above best characterizes this situation for Rossiter. He stopped doing the job they paid him for, which was to progressive advocate policy agendas irregardless of the truth. The element missing here is how the Progressives view their actions versus their words. More clearly, Progressives are content with lies, distortions, half-truths meant to deceive, and corruption if it/they (the deceptions) serve a bigger purpose, a means-to-an-end justification.
We see it in so much of what has come out of Obama is lies to further an end. ACA healthcare lies to sell a takeover of US healthcare system. The National Climate Assessment bag of lies to scare people into accepting carbon taxes, and of course a bigger objective of de-industrialization. Of course with de-industrialization, joblessness and social unrest will follow. Thus the push by the left in the USA to cutail 1st and 2nd Amendment rights. Also more government welfare wil be necessary to forcibly redistribute wealth, thus more taxes too, as in carbon taxes. A Living Constitutional interpretation is needed to expand government reach into areas reserved to the people or the states.
@Evan Jones – interesting link to Rossitor’s bail on “climate debate” It reads as though he never heard of WUWT, or ever visited here, particularly in his rejection of processing data due to politics, ideology and spin. His exposition is tantamount to sticking his fingers in his ears and quoting the SoCal hymn, “lalalalalaalalala”. Better he cross the aisle as a self-described skeptic and sit in the WUWT pews. Now, of course, I guess he can.
_______________
Bysebye, Never trust a hyphenated-justice. Hyphenated-justice is only crony-speak for “agenda” Justice can’t have an adjectival qualifier – its a dichotomous concept – there is either justice or there is not. Partial, grey, limited, or qualified is NOT justice, only a pretense of it.
This is how ruling fascists typically imposed party discipline in the 20s and 30s. Of course, they didn’t last long either.
If fascist scientists like Mann and policy makers like Gina McCarthy (interesting name, that) think they can thrive in a free society with these kinds of tactics, they are delusional.
And yet it moves.
The outrage here is bizarre. Caleb Rossiter isn’t a “professor,” he’s an “adjunct fellow.” The IPS isn’t an accredited university, it’s a think tank with its own stated positions.
Caleb Rossiter isn’t a climate scientist, he’s a politician and policy wonk.
If an associate of the Heritage Foundation publicly called for the nationalization of all banks, I’d expect that guy to be dismissed pronto in the same way.
This is what organizations do — terminate relationships with associates who are not supporting the mission.
DrudgeReport features this story today:
http://oi59.tinypic.com/2py2gle.jpg
Professor ‘terminated’ for challenging ‘global warming’…
Links to: “Climate McCarthyism claims yet another victim”
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/06/13/Climate-McCarthyism-claims-yet-another-victim
Comic relief:
http://s6.postimg.org/kdr0qt181/Climate_Mc_Carthyism.jpg
Peter Schwartz says:
He wasn’t terminated, he was excommunicated.
True dat.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Izen says:
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.
Flat wrong. The price may rise, but there are plenty of fossil fuels available. Search “Bakken”.
And:
…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.
Pure unfounded assertion. There is no evidence whatever that is true. In fact, every alarmist prediction has turned out to be totally wrong; no exceptions. Why should anyone listen to them any more?
=============================
Mary Brown says:
IPS is a left wing organization. Caleb Rossiter was paid to push the company line. He failed. He got fired. I have no problem with that.
But you do have a problem with someone speaking the truth.
Here is Rossiter’s climate blog. Why don’t you pick out something — anything — that you disagree with. We can discuss it here. I have no problem with that.
For low information voters, here is a simple explanation of what happened to Caleb Rossiter. Just two words…
Read the Siena Group’s Club of Rome report, entitled THE LIMITS TO GROWTH, published in 1971/1972. In that report, “they” talk about using “global warming” as a meme to get humanity to blame itself, for what are actually natural, cyclical changes in weather patterns, and to get humanity to blame itself, for potential (future) natural catastrophes, like hurricanes, tornados, tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, etc. The reason they want humanity to blame itself, is because “they” don’t intend to change anything about the way “they” run their corporations, which pump tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, annually. Humanity is being “pumped, and dumped”, by the .001/.01/1%. “They” plan these things DECADES in advance. While this Club of Rome report was being distributed, Scientists in the 1970′s were warning of a “coming Ice Age”. Look, “they” couldn’t even reach an agreement back in the 1970′s, so why would it be any different today. Keep in mind, that just because people are in agreement about something doesn’t make it so. 99% of people could be told by the government, and their media, that UP is really DOWN, and that DOWN is really UP. But, that doesn’t make it so. Look into CLIMATEGATE. It’s not science, this “global warming” push – it’s POLITICS. Pure poly-tricks. It’s all part of the Cini Foundation, the Siena Group, the Club of Rome, the International Central Bankers, and their push for global governance, with themselves, the .001/.01/1% ruling over the 99.999% debt slaves on their global plantation.
I’d like to correct and expand upon my comment.
Prof. Rossiter certainly IS a professor — adjunct professor at American University, not at IPS.
IPS hasn’t specified why Rossiter was terminated. Reading his op-ed at WSJ, it likely was NOT for expressing skepticism of climate change.
Rossiter ridiculed many people and interests in the piece: a peer at IPS, students at AU, environmentalists in general, and thus, multiple donor classes of IPS.
His argument, that development in Africa should not be compromised on the basis of climate concerns, could have been forcefully made without antagonizing these groups.
He seems to have used WSJ to vent his spleen in multiple directions at once. I’d have terminated him, too.
What’s striking is not that the Institute for Policy Studies canned Rossiter, but that Rossiter came out in public against IPS’s preferred view of things.
Bill Gates must be in a similar position. He is trying to help Africa and Africans with his charity but if he is on the CAGW side then he can’t help in any effective way. Keeping people alive longer while they are in poverty is hardly a win. There are so many ways he is not ‘allowed’ to help.
If Bill Gates follows in Rossiter’s footsteps then he will really be able to make a difference.
I think he can be ‘turned’ otherwise all his good intentions will be continual failure. {Though imagine the hatred if he put people above ideology!}
Shame on this intolerance in the country. People can speak and must speak up what they want!!
ozspeaksup says:
theres some of us however who dont like industrialisation for the other reason
It leaves us without jobs, however boring or menial some folks might think they are..they were work and we got paid and had some pride in them and didnt end up in a dole line.
grape harvesting
used to employ 20 or 30 people for at least 8weeks in my old area. mechanised harvest one man one machine one week and none of us even got the tiny yearly cashflow ever again.
one man earns heaps now..and his machinery is a tax deduction. win win for him
many examples of the same, reason why rural jobs are scant and low paid even now.
A complete misunderstanding of economics. You look at the short term impact instead of the long term. Pity the candlemakers when the light bulb came to be.
Read “Economics in One Lesson” and see what someone with better understanding of the subject has to say.