By Gregory Fegel
Professionals and academics who disagree with the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) have been ostracized for their contrary views, resulting in termination of their employment, or in forced retirement.
A similar fate has happened to many professionals and academics who have defied the diktat of the AGW “consensus”. The punishments meted out to Taylor and other skeptics by the professional and academic establishment have had a chilling effect on dissent, and the result is that today, few professionals and academics will question the AGW theory, for fear of losing their jobs and their careers. In academia, and in public forums, the AGW theorists continually and consistently refuse to debate the subject of AGW with qualified skeptics.Polar bear expert Mitchell Taylor, Ph.D., says that the polar bear population has been increasing for the past 40 years, and that polar bears are not currently threatened by warming.
Because of his contrary opinion, Taylor was not invited to the 2009 meeting of the Polar Bear Specialist Group, although he had participated in every PBSG meeting from 1981 to 2018. This shunning by the PBSG effectively ended Taylor’s career in polar bear research, and it forced him to retire. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitchell_Taylor
From the Oregonian: “In 2011 the Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever resigned from the American Physical Society after the group stated, “the evidence is incontrovertible: global warming is occurring.” Giaever’s response: “Incontrovertible is not a scientific word. Nothing is incontrovertible in science.”
As a result, the 87-year-old Giaever has become one of the highest profile climate-change deniers. … He argues that the global temperature since 1800 has been remarkably stable and that carbon dioxide is not a “major climate gas.” He insists that global-warming data from NASA and other respected sources is wrong and explains why he believes that. He says there is no way to accurately measure the average temperature of the globe. (NASA, to be clear, states unequivocally that there is a “scientific consensus”: Earth’s climate is heating up.)” https://www.oregonlive.com/today/index.ssf/2016/04/the_debate_about_human-caused.html
From the Oregonian: “The Oregon Museum of Science and Industry has pulled the plug on a presentation from three scientists critical of the theory of man-made global warming, saying the panel wasn’t balanced. Oregon’s chapter of the American Meteorological Society had scheduled the scientists to speak Tuesday at OMSI, which has long provided free space to the group for meetings. … Gordon Fulks, a local physicist, was one of the scheduled speakers. He said the society tried to round up speakers with opposing viewpoints to join the panel, but they refused.” https://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2011/11/omsi_cancels_global_warming_pr.html
The AGW skeptics want to debate the subject of AGW, and the AGW alarmists refuse to engage in a debate. The AGW skeptics dispute the government and establishment position, while the AGW alarmists loyally support the government and establishment position. So yes, there is a psychological, attitudinal, and behavioral difference between the AGW skeptics and the AGW alarmists,
Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age (2009), by Gregory Fegel
See more here:
http://www.pravdareport.com/science/earth/11-01-2009/106922-earth_ice_age-0/
See also:
http://climaterealists.com/?id=4138
“The main flaw in the AGW theory is that its proponents focus on evidence from only the past one thousand years at most, while ignoring the evidence from the past million years — evidence which is essential for a true understanding of climatology.” – Gregory Fegel
The justice of the left is the justice of the lynch mob.
Perhaps this is what is meant by climate justice.
when the cooling returns, hopefully payback will be porgrom style
When? /sarc
The cooling is, IMHO, currently about -0.12K/decade, and probably not going anywhere too soon for me witness. Note the cooling is minus 0.12K/decade. That’s ‘warming’.
Don’t be so pessimistic. Warming continues, everything will be fine. They ‘ll shut up in twenty years, the peak TDS has been seen.
This is actually Good News (in a round about way). It means that the Museum is now unable to host a meeting of Climate Change Alarmists who would present information on the Evils of CO2 without inviting Skeptics to also make presentations. Without the Skeptic side, the presentations would be “Unbalanced”
Curious thing about “balance”, it only applies if we’re talking about opinions not approved by leftists. So alas there is no impediment to having a global-warming-palooza where all skepticism is silenced. What is unthinkable is to have a panel where nobody defends The Truth.
The balance in that case will be achieved by having a raving lunatic, a lunatic, and a mildly deranged person argue about whether the point of no return has already been passed or is 6 or 12 months in the future.
Started w/ the French Revolution. Some of the tools have changed, but the tactics haven’t.
Speaking of tools: No guillotine … yet.
First they attack their enemies.
Then they attack anyone who may have stood up for their enemies.
Then, just to be sure, they attack anyone who might become an enemy.
Then they attack all the people who question if they have attacked quite enough people alread.y
Then, they attack each other.
Repeat as needed, in every revolution.
They all think they are immune, until the next generation, who have learned nothing but creating then attacking enemies, start questioning their loyalty to the cause.
BTW, its amazing that although there is a replication crisis in all other sciences, and where “pal review” has replaced peer review, climate “science” remains sacrosanct. Thanks Al Gore!
Found this as I was going to mention what happened to archaeologist Tom Dillehay:
https://www.the-scientist.com/news/monte-verde-archeologist-prevails-in-dispute-over-settlements-age-61570
But this one is even more recent:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/jacques-cinq-mars-bluefish-caves-scientific-progress-180962410/
“The scientific atmosphere, recalls Dillehay, was “clearly toxic and clearly impeded science.”
Caligula Jones, thanks for those 2 url links.
This is factual evidence that the relatives of this young boy DID NOT cross the Bering Strait “ice bridge” at anytime during the past 20K years BP.
Posted in 2014 – there have been more victims since then.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/27/a-big-goose-step-backwards/#comment-1800850
Here is a list of those forced from their institutions by global warming thugs:
George Taylor – Oregon State Climatologist
Sallie Baliunas – Harvard University
Pat Michaels – University of Virginia
Murry Salby – Macquarie University, Australia
Caleb Rossiter – Institute for Policy Studies
Nickolas Drapela, PhD – Oregon State University
Henrik Møller – Aalborg University, Denmark
Bob Carter, James Cook University, Australia
Regards, Allan
Peter Ridd JCU Australia.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/16/privileged-rich-rocker-paul-mccartney-cant-understand-climate-denial/#comment-2459983
[excerpt]
… as I suspect you know, this is NOT an honest mistake by honest scientists and honest politicians – it is deliberate fraud by liars and scoundrels.
Experience has taught us that the extremist leaders of the global warming / climate change movement are not interested in science OR the environment – theirs is a far-left political objective – to destroy the economy and take control, like they have done in over 100 countries around the world – see Venezuela and Zimbabwe for prime examples.
Frighten and stampede the sheeple, and promise them lots of free stuff, and the sheeple will believe you and vote for you – that is the left’s political model, and it works because half the population is of less-than-average intelligence. The sheeple typically vote for the left, because sheeple are really stupid.
Dr. Patrick Moore, a co-founder of Greenpeace, provides a history of the rise of eco-extremism, below. Moore says that the far-left political movement effectively annexed the green movement after the fall of the Berlin Wall, when pro-Soviet groups were discredited and needed to find a new power base for their far-left political agenda.
The extremists have succeeded. Governments, academia, the media and large corporations are all cowed into submission. Honest scientists have been ousted from their universities for speaking and writing the truth. Only a few tenured or retired professors and the occasional renegade dares to speak out, and the younger ones often use aliases for fear of retaliation.
It is long past time for all those who have been cowed into submission by the bullying of global warming extremists to stand strong for their convictions.
Despite increasing atmospheric CO2, there has been no dangerous global warming – this has been adequately proved by Christy and McNider (2017) and Lewis and Curry (2018), as summarized below. Climate is relatively INsensitive to increasing CO2.
Increased atmospheric CO2, from whatever cause. will at most drive minor, net-beneficial global warming, and significantly increased plant and crop yields.
The global warming crisis does not exist, except in the fevered minds of the sheeple and their corrupt leaders.
Best personal regards, Allan
REFERENCES:
THE RISE OF ECO-EXTREMISM
by Patrick Moore (1994)
http://ecosense.me/2012/12/30/key-environmental-issues-4/
[excerpt]
“Surprisingly enough the second event that caused the environmental movement to veer to the left was the fall of the Berlin Wall. Suddenly the international peace movement had a lot less to do. Pro-Soviet groups in the West were discredited. Many of their members moved into the environmental movement bringing with them their eco-Marxism and pro-Sandinista sentiments.”
THERE IS NO REAL GLOBAL WARMING CRISIS
by Allan MacRae (2018)
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/07/study-claims-global-warming-induced-by-ancient-farmers-may-have-staved-off-ice-age/#comment-2451937
[excerpt]
1. CLIMATE SENSITIVITY TO INCREASING ATMOSPHERIC CO2 IS LOW – ONLY ABOUT 1C/DOUBLING
Christy and McNider (2017) estimate climate sensitivity at 1.1C/doubling for UAH Lower Tropospheric (LT) temperatures.
Lewis and Curry (2018) estimate climate sensitivity at 1.6C/doubling for ECS and 1.3C/doubling for TCR, using Hatcrut4 surface temperatures (ST). These surface temperatures probably have a significant warming bias due to poor siting of measurements, UHI effects, other land use changes, etc.
Both analyses are “full-earth-scale”, which have the least room for errors.
Both are “UPPER BOUND” estimates of sensitivity, derived by assuming that ~ALL* warming is due to increasing atmospheric CO2. It is possible, in fact probable, that less of the warming is driven by CO2, and most of it is natural variation.
(*Note – Christy and McNider make allowance for major volcanoes El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991+)
The slightly higher sensitivity values in Curry and Lewis are due to the higher warming estimates of Hadcrut4 surface temperatures versus UAH LT temperatures.
Practically speaking, however, these sensitivity estimates are similar, about 1C/doubling. and are far too low to support any runaway or catastrophic manmade global warming.
Higher estimates of climate sensitivity have no credibility. There is no real global warming crisis.
Increased atmospheric CO2, from whatever cause will at most drive minor, net-beneficial global warming, and significantly increased plant and crop yields.
CONCLUSION: The total impact if increasing atmospheric CO2 is hugely beneficial to humanity and the environment. Any scientist or politician who contradicts this statement is destructive, acting against the well-being of humanity and the environment.
2. EARTH IS CLEARLY COLDER-THAN-OPTIMUM FOR HUMANITY AND THE ENVIRONMENT
Earth is significantly colder-than-optimum for humanity and the environment. Twenty times more people die from cold than die from heat – about 2 million Excess Winter Deaths every year worldwide.*
In the USA, Excess Winter Deaths average about one hundred thousand souls per year, equivalent to two 9-11’s per week for 17 weeks every year!
Even more startling is the preliminary estimate of Excess Winter Deaths in the UK – about 48,000 this past winter! The UK suffered about HALF the average annual Excess Winter Deaths of the USA, but the UK has only ONE-FIFTH the USA’s population. High energy prices, or “Heat or Eat” as it is termed in the UK, is becoming a significant cause of premature deaths of the elderly and the poor.
Anti-fracking groups in the UK, many of whom are phony-green Marxist fronts, have cost Britain dearly in lost billions of pounds sterling and hundreds of thousands of needlessly-shortened lives.
CONCLUSION: Excess Winter Deaths are increased by foolish green energy policies like mandatory wind and solar power in the grid, which produce little useful (dispatchable) energy and drive up energy costs, preferentially killing off the elderly and the poor.
A few more thoughts:
3. GLOBAL WARMING ALARMISM IS ANTI-HUMAN AND ANTI-ENVIRONMENT
False global warming alarmism causes the enormous human suffering and death in the developing world, where green fanaticism has prevented the installation of cheap, reliable, abundant energy systems.
This is frustrating, because some of us knew that the global warming scam was false nonsense as early as ~1985, based on the evidence available then. Since that time, the evidence of global warming fraud has grown more and more credible, and yet this multi-trillion dollar-per-year scam continues.
We published in 2002 that the global warming crisis did not exist in reality, and that green energy schemes would not be adequate to replace fossil fuels. Both these statements are now proven to be correct, for anyone who objectively examines the evidence.
CONCLUSION: Anyone who continues to support global warming alarmism and schemes to abate fossil fuels is seriously deluded at best, and more correctly is guilty of crimes against humanity. The overwhelming evidence is that increasing atmospheric CO2 will lead to improved plant and crop growth, and any resulting warming will be mild and beneficial.
4. GREEN EXTREMISTS ARE THE GREAT KILLERS OF OUR AGE
Green extremism started with the banning of DDT from ~1972 to ~2002. The ban on DDT DOUBLED the number of deaths from malaria, more than half of which were children age 4 and under whose deaths peaked at almost 1 million per year – just babies –and half of these deaths were easily preventable.
Add to this the numbers of deaths due to the global warming scam and the “phony war” against increasing atmospheric CO2 and the total green death toll is in the tens of millions, similar to the number of needless deaths caused in the 20th Century by leftist icons Hitler, Stalin or Mao.
CONCLUSION: Leftist Green extremists are the greatest killers of our time – rivaling the death tolls of the greatest sociopathic killers of the 20th Century. Those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it.
______________________________
* Reference:
COLD WEATHER KILLS 20 TIMES AS MANY PEOPLE AS HOT WEATHER
By Joseph D’Aleo and Allan MacRae, September 4, 2015
https://friendsofsciencecalgary.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/cold-weather-kills-macrae-daleo-4sept2015-final.pdf
QUOTATIONS FROM GREEN-AGENDA.COM
http://www.green-agenda.com/
“The common enemy of humanity is man.
In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up
with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming,
water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these
dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through
changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.
The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
– Club of Rome,
premier environmental think-tank,
consultants to the United Nations
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the
industrialized civilizations collapse?
Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
– Maurice Strong,
founder of the UN Environment Programme
“A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the
United States. De-development means bringing our
economic system into line with the realities of
ecology and the world resource situation.”
– Paul Ehrlich,
Professor of Population Studies
“One America burdens the earth much more than
twenty Bangladeshes. This is a terrible thing to say.
In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate
350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say,
but it’s just as bad not to say it.”
– Jacques Cousteau
yep
With my apologies to Pete Seeger:
Where have all the flowers gone, long time passing?
Where have all the flowers gone, long time ago?
Where have all the flowers gone?
Young girls have picked them everyone.
Oh, when will they ever learn?
Oh, when will they ever learn?
Where have all the Marxists gone, long time passing?
Where have all the Marxists gone, long time ago?
Where have all the Marxists gone?
Gone to green groups everyone.
Oh, when will they ever learn?
Oh, when will they ever learn?
… wonder where they’ll go after AGW becomes passé?
UNFCCC
Articles
Search results: Alberta, Canada
https://unfccc.int/gcse?q=Alberta
Provides a little insight on what’s taking place in Alberta.
UNFCCC
Articles: Greenpeace activities.
https://unfccc.int/gcse?q=Greenpeace%20International
https://unfccc.int/gcse?q=Greenpeace%20Canada
https://unfccc.int/gcse?q=Greenpeace%20USA
Unfortunately, “You’re dumb if you vote for these guys. Stop being dumb and vote for us instead.” is not a very successful campaign pitch. People don’t like to be told they’re acting stupidly, even when demonstrably shown that they are.
Allan,
Why do you accept the lower sensitivity estimates and reject the higher ones? What is the scientific basis for doing so, especially given that these are outliers when all models are considered? Have you considered the criticisms of Lewis and Curry’s methods, such as those posted here: https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2014/09/25/lewis-and-curry/
It seems your mortality data didn’t take into account the additional mortality due to influenza epidemics and complications during winter, which complicates the picture. Respiratory diseases may escalate due to factors besides extremes in temperature when people spend more time indoors, especially if indoor air pollution is a problem.
“Despite claims that extreme heat is increasing and cold is decreasing, the un-adjusted statewide extreme temperature data shows the opposite. A total of 23 of the state all-time record high temperatures occurred in the 1930s and 38 record highs occurred before 1960. There have been more record lows since the 1940s than record highs.” I wonder if you took into account that in order to have a record high, it has to exceed the previous record high. So, 101 F in 1935 must be exceeded to be a record high in any following year. This lowers the probability that maximum temps will exceed previous temperatures the longer the record considered.
Another way of looking at it considers the percent of land area “with unusually hot daily high and low temperatures during the months of June, July, and August.” This shows that widespread hot days in the past decade have exceeded those in the ’30s, with hot nights far more widespread:
Another: ” The current observed value of the ratio of daily record high maximum temperatures to record low minimum temperatures averaged across the U.S. is about two to one. This is because records that were declining uniformly earlier in the 20th century following a decay proportional to 1/n (n being the number of years since the beginning of record keeping) have been declining less slowly for record highs than record lows since the late 1970s. ”
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2009GL040736
Someone posted on WUWT that global warming is raising winter nighttime temperatures while not affecting them during the day. Since people spend more time outside during the day and in bed at night, global warming may not actually decrease deaths due to extreme cold by very much if this is true. (I don’t know what the actual temperature figures are.) But then, you believe global warming is a “scam,” anyway.
Since there seems to be a trend for excess winter mortality to occur more in warmer climates and on moderately cold winter days rather than extremely cold ones, this could be an argument supporting the idea that global warming could lead to even greater excess winter mortality, counterintuitive as that may seem. (Just an idea; I have no clue whether it would work out that way!) “A study by Healy (2003) showed that excess winter mortality (EWM) varied widely within Europe. The results show that countries with low winter temperatures in Scandinavia and Northern Europe, such as Finland and Germany, had very low rates of EWM. Conversely, countries with very mild winter temperatures in Southern Europe such as Portugal and Spain had very high rates of EWM….Although EWM is associated with low temperatures, conditions directly relating to cold, such as hypothermia, are not the main cause of EWM. The majority of additional winter deaths are caused by cerebrovascular diseases, ischaemic heart disease, respiratory diseases, and dementia and Alzheimer’s disease. ”
“Green” adaptation/mitigation could include better insulation in residences, which would both lower mortality and save energy. In the U.S., part of Obama’s economic stimulus package included funds to insulate and install more energy efficient furnaces in low-income homes, which provided training and jobs, and made homes more fuel-efficient.
………………………………………….
Allan: “False global warming alarmism causes the enormous human suffering and death in the developing world, where green fanaticism has prevented the installation of cheap, reliable, abundant energy systems.”
I’d like to see evidence that this is the case. Where in the developing world has “green fanaticism” actually prevented the construction of fossil fuel plants?
While the Green Climate Fund contributes to projects that provide renewable energy, my understanding is that this augments the current power infrastructure, providing energy to those without access to electricity. It also has projects that aim to increase efficiency and decrease brown-outs. Other projects improve access to markets. Then there are the many projects that increase agricultural resiliency after crop failures due to extreme weather events, provide clean water, and prevent catastrophic flooding. For instance, lakes are forming in the Himalayas from glacial meltwater that threaten to burst their banks and flood villages.
None of these project suggest that “Leftist Green extremists are the greatest killers of our time – rivaling the death tolls of the greatest sociopathic killers of the 20th Century. ” Just the opposite – these are helping people in the developing world live better, safer and more productive lives. Those who are against making contributions to the Green Climate Fund are preventing projects like these from being implemented – and that can’t be blamed on the Greens.
(Besides, you present no evidence whatsoever that “Leftist Green extremists are the greatest killers…” That’s just propagandist rhetoric.)
As we see played out so dramatically today, the “progressives” of today use Kafka as a starting point.
This country’s justice system is a double standard. Democrats can do anything they want and get away with it, Republicans are prosecuted for even things they do not do.
As far as not being a believer in fake AGW, there is not a thing any one could ever do to me to make me quiet. I will fight this, but I will not have to much longer as nature will put an end to this nonsense in response to the natural factors turning into a cold mode.
If AGW is valid global temperatures should continue to rise in the face of weakening solar/geo magnetic fields. Bring it on!
Western countries not too long ago formally separated Church and State. Before than time you could be imprisoned, property confiscated, tortured, and put to death for daring to question Church teachings. The reason for this was quite simple. When laws are based upon BELIEF, not FACTS, injustice is guaranteed.
Now today Science has replaced the Church as the center of belief. And the Democratic Party in the US has adopted BELIEF Climate Change as a plant in the party platform. And this has placed us on the same slippery slope as BELIEF in religion.
Look at the news. People are not concerned with Climate Change per se. They are concerned whether you BELIEVE in Climate Change. This is the great crime for which you must be punished. Your lack of faith, the fact that you do not believe.
Unfortunately, the situation will continue to get worse until governments formally separate Science and State. In the meanwhile this problem can be expected to get worse, as we saw with the marriage of Church and State.
Today it is Climate Change. Tomorrow it could be belief in any scientific question.
A priest once told me many years ago, “Alan, never ever criticise the wisdom of the church, it’s the only tyranny that’s lasted for 2000 years!” 😉
If a church is guilty of tyranny it is because it has abandoned the plain teachings of the Christian Scriptures. These declared thousands of years ago that man has no control over the weather or climate.
It is those scientist and politicians today who have the arrogance to think that puny man can somehow change the climate that are living in their own mythical world. It is their critics that are concerned with sober realism.
Or alternatively it is because they have deserted the teachings of the Buddha. Religion is not necessarily Christian but most seem to have the same leaning towards totalitarianism.
Have you read ecologist PeterTAylor’s splendid book “Chill”? Explores sun cycles,clouds, oceans, cyclic patterns, CO2, etc.etc. – and concluding chapters show how and why the hubrisof AGW has become established as a kind of apoaclyptic religion, a man made illkusion based on collusion, poliics, money, funding, how it has becomethe established norm now difficult to challenge. Also why we may soon face global cooling. Peter has worked internaitonally on advisory panels, and in fact states that current AGW initiatives work against a proper ecology.
Allow me to make a correction Ferd, It is not that science has replaced the church. Science is but a tool of the Political Class . The political Progressive movement has adopted church tactics. They desire absolute power over the masses. Their goal is to hold an ironclad grip on the great unwashed, so they deploy science to create the necessary fear and guilt to control said populous, just as the church used guilt and fear of God to keep the peasant class in tow.
Yes, Bill. Those with a good science education are much harder to intimidate into believing something. Hence surveys have reported that cAGW skeptics tend to be more science educated, not less.
I’ll add that the article could do with being a bit more precise about whether somebody is disputing the theory of AGW, or the measurements and predictions. I generally don’t bother disputing much of the theory, just that it has probably been badly modeled and that the predictions are manifestly proving to be wrong or exaggerated.
The church itself was never the problem either. At the time it was the tool of the ruling classes.
Government needs to protect liberty. It’s that simple.
Separation of Church and State has meant many different things through the past hundreds of years so that ambiguity makes it a worthless term. Such efforts have been, and continue to be, catastrophic.
A separation of science and state would be equally catastrophic.
+1
Science is the search for fact, not truth. While fact is a part of truth, maybe even the greater part, a claim that fact is the whole of truth is unfalsifiable, and thus falls outside the domain of science. It’s a belief, or if you prefer, a philosophical proposition.
drednicolson,
Interesting statement, but I think you need to define “fact” and its relation to “truth.”
I would say that science is the search for truth, but that it never claims to find it. It is the process that is the important part. A fact can be true or untrue, and science doesn’t aim to find untrue facts.
It is forgotten that science as it exists today, or indeed any time, is how humans perceive things, in itself a process so frequently determined by sociologicacl, religious or political agendas, and the limitations of human minds. Quantum physics rather throws a spanner in the works of “scientific truth” insofar as it is via the human psyche, a “seeming”. Since in ordinary states of consciousness at any given time in history, this rule must follow, we are left with the question in the gospel tale of Pilate -“what is truth?” Science “works” – for a time. Is Newton the final word? Is Einstein? Is quantum? Is “CO2 causes global warming” “true” or is it the current apolcalyptic “religion” driven by a politico-quasi relgious agenda? Is AGW hubris, mankind as in charge, the potential destroyer of planet Earth, the sinner, leading to potential apocalypse, yet also, greater powers, God, what really is, name it whatever, being absent, the potential saviour of himself and planet Earth? We are back in mythic territory.
Actually they are getting caught! Even Papadopulous has finally come cleanm after a whopping 14day sentence, that it was Britain which interfered in the US election. Just imagine the consternation at Chatham House with the declassification of a paper trail leading right to London.
And the incessant muterings here about religion avoid the uncomfortable fact it was Prince Philip’s ARC (Alliance. for Religion and Conservation) who made climate a religion. After all he is the Royal Consort of the head of another Church. Britain the Third Rome and all that. That same church leader awarded personnaly Dr. Schellnhuber’s CBE (Commander British Empire), and all that. He the author of the Pope’s paean to Gaia, Laudato Si, and all that.
Has someone compiled a list of all those who have suffered for the cause of proper science?
At the very least they ought to be remembered,,,
Dodgy…the intimidation has been pervasive, but is often not overt. Certainly there are plenty who have lost their jobs and/or their funding for not towing the line, but for many who wish to question climate orthodoxy, it hasn’t gone that far.
Climate alarmists get the grants, the press, the publishing and the at-a-boys. Climate realists get overlooked, little funding and social alienation. The message is clear. If you want to make a living in the climate business, you have to conform.
The power of group think is huge, but it is difficult to specifically quantify because of its subtle nature. The list of those who have lost their jobs over being skeptical of a climate crisis may not be long, but the list of those who have been intimidated in one way or another is around 97% (pseudo-sarc).
It goes beyond the climate business. As you write it is pervasive. Car companies and energy companies pay lip service to it as matter of PR. Pretended greenness is used as an advertising tool. It is overtly preached from the pulpits of the K-12 schools, and teachers who disagree don’t have their contracts renewed. It is built into the lending policies of financial institutions. It is built into the building codes and manufacturing regulations. It is overtly enforced in Gov bureaucracy. The list could go on.
How far back do you want to Go? Galileo wasn’t alone in suffering for questioning the current beliefs.
One example of the intimidation factor is something I have observed in almost every paper which contains information which might contradict the warming dogma. They all contain a section which clearly states that the findings do not contradict the dogma (even though they do).
The debate is probably over now that President Trump has turned of the money supply for the academics to use. Interest is already waning in the business world, subsidies for the “renewables” industry are being reduced or stopped entirely.
Soon we will see some of the big hedge funds take body blows as “green” investments wither and die and the fossil fueled world will sail on serenely providing more and more of us with a good, healthy productive life.
Something new will come along to make us feel guilty for being human; plastics, meat, agriculture or something unimagined today. It seems the PTB feel obliged to keep us feeling abashed about something or other, much as the Catholic Church used to keep its congregation penitent about human frailties.
At least we have President Trump to thank for this respite.
Trump is only 1 person. The republicams continue to defund the promised wall which will cost them in November. Many republican politicians resent Trump because he makes them look bad. His policies are working where for years politicians on both sides of the aisle said for years they would not. These same politicians want to punish Trump for doing what they could not.
Nothing they hate more than someone from outside of politics proving the professional politicians wrong. It threatens their gravy train. What if people figure out politicians were the problem not the solution. Their world would end.
Would this then be called the Second Enlightenment??
Shades of Trofim Lysenko.
The free market proves the fraudulent claims of those who are climate alarmists and advocates for replacing all carbon fuels (coal, oil, gas) with renewable resources (wind, water, sunlight). If the latter could be used to provide our energy needs anywhere near as cheaply and consistently and without subsidies as the former, many big businesses would be investing massively in these because of the guarantee of huge profits. All responsible people want a cleaner environment but a responsible person is not prepared to bankrupt himself and his family in trying to achieve an totally unrealistic goal of expecting technology to mature prematurely.
“Because of his contrary opinion, Taylor was not invited to the 2009 meeting of the Polar Bear Specialist Group, although he had participated in every PBSG meeting from 1981 to 2018. ”
What (?)
I think that was supposed to be ‘1981 to 2008’.
~¿~
Actually it would have to be the 2019 meeting, otherwise why write now about something that happened 10 years ago. Also, more likely one typo than two.
Galileo all over again
Richard Lindzen has a solution. He claims climate science is so corrupt, it needs an 80% funding cut. That would change the dynamic quickly as scientists in today’s administrator heavy academic environment are only as good as the amount of grant money they can raise.
One question – how is diktat different than dictate and can you tell if someone is using the word diktat instead of dictate in normal conversation?
Easy. Dictators don’t have conversations, by definition. Bit like the AGW crowd, what?
A dictator dictates policy by issuing diktats.
diktat is like dictate, only more so.
Well, if you concentrate on the word structure, dik tat, ….oh, well. I’m outa here.
diktat = fatwa
“Das Diktat” is German for “the dictate”. “Diktat” sounds more draconian by virtue of being German. Like “streng verboten” for “strictly forbidden”.
Diktat is a noun, dictate is a verb
Reality has a way of asserting itself.
The cabal will eventually lose their choke-hold within the scientific community, just as they are losing the public policy debate. They will never admit they were wrong, though. When you’ve stated things so emphatically, for so long, on a topic with such serious implications, you can’t just walk it back and say, “Oh, sorry we asked you to waste hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars.” They’re all in and will have to die off.
No one ever admitted they were wrong about the Population Bomb. They haven’t acknowledged that Oil hasn’t Peaked either.
Hell, most of them are still publishing. They just jump onto the next scare and keep going, and the Leftists keep treating them like they are credible. As long as Socialism can be claimed as the only solution.
~¿~
No one admitted they were wrong about “The Limits of Growth,” either.
Steve O. – ” They will never admit they were wrong, though”
I’m curious how Bloodletting lost favor. At some point it must’ve been recognized that it did more harm than good, but were there ‘barbers’ that refused to believe the reversal in understanding and continued the practice rather than admit they’ve been wrong?
Wrong Science was able to do what King George III’s military force could not and that was to kill George Washington.
Bloodletting hasn’t lost favour. Look up “medicinal leeches”. Ewww!
Unfortunately, I agree with Schitzree – at best, they’ll do revisionist history on their own positions and morph their alarmism into something else – all with similar ends and solutions.
Rationalization is an amazing thing to watch.
‘…. a psychological, attitudinal and behavioral difference … ‘.
But the biggest difference is that the AGW skeptics are right and the alarmists are not.
Again – a universally Progressive tactic that is not restricted to Climate Change.
See https://www.coatsengineering.com/ccus.htm
This is proof that fraudulent SPE Moderators censored scientific debate on AGW years ago in their “Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage” discussion forum when I challenged the validity of AGW and CCS.
World’s gone completely bonkers.
Thankfully, as individuals we’re not the “world”. Each of us can choose to work our own little bit with integrity and honor. Let the Devil take those who choose differently.
Step out of line, get punished by Big Clime.
Say it ain’t so, you’ll be visited by the Climate Popo.
They’ll tell you what to say and what to think,
And even suggest you take a swig of their favorite Green drink.
If you are going to make a list of those who have suffered, then please create another list of those who triggered the sacking.
Totally off Topic [Pls Forgive me Mods], but just read a story that Leo Di Caff is buying a beach front Malibu mansion. Is this old news? Comments anyone?
Presumably he’s not concerned about sea level rising very much.
The game of the alarmists is to force out any and everyone daring to question the orthodoxy, most especially the older, wiser and once respected. Once they have done so even if the climate plunges into an new ice age the alarmists will still be in charge, control the rhetoric. There will be fewer to question their claims, “see we told you CO2 would cause catastrophic climate change.” Best example is just look at our education systems today. Totally dominated by leftists who have driven out no just professors question orthodoxies but challenging political correctness and eliminating traditional course that teach critical thinking, e.g., formal logic.
Skeptics are always needed, especially to have control but do not deny that Earth is spherical.
They will hunt you beyond the grave.
Marcel Leroux was a French climate scientists, a world leading authority in atmospheric circulation, but highly critical with the small cadre that took over climate science to put it at the service of politicians like Maurice Strong. He published in 2005 a book exposing their folly:
Global Warming – Myth or reality? The erring ways of climatology. Marcel Leroux. 2005. Praxis Publishing Ltd. 510 pages.
He died in 2008, months after completing the second edition to his masterpiece, published in English in 2010:
Dynamic Analysis of Weather and Climate. Atmospheric Circulation, Perturbations, Climatic Evolution. Marcel Leroux. 2010. 2nd Edition. Springer-Praxis. 464 pages.
He has an entry in the French Wikipedia and the Spanish Wikipedia. But his entry in the English Wikipedia was deleted in 2011, and when restored, it was deleted again permanently in 2012.
The Chiefio has preserved a copy here.
They won’t let you rest in peace if you were a skeptic in life.
These prominent skeptics are perhaps too well known to be deleted:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Gray
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_Bryson
Their Wiki entries can only be attacked by the Climatariat.
Javier,
This is a perfect example of censorship.
“He has an entry in the French Wikipedia”
Marcel Leroux (Linked via Google Translate).
Link to his seminal paper:-
Leroux, M. (1993). The Mobile Polar High: a new concept explaining present mechanisms of meridional air-mass and energy exchanges and global propagation of palaeoclimatic changes Global and Planetary Change, 7 69-93.
And here is a fully accessible French version of his paper with diagrams and references:-
Leroux M. (1986) L’Anticyclone mobile Polaire: facteur premier de la climatologie tempérée (The Polar mobile Anticyclone: first factor of temperate climatology) Bulletin de l’Association de Géographes Français, 63-4 pp. 311-328.
Government is interested in money and promoting itself, and I have dealt with government fraud and black listing . Read How Two Glasses of Water Diisprove Global Warming Fraud : Pollution , Sewage and Emerging Diseases https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-two-glasses-water-disprove-global-warming-fraud-ed-greenhalgh/ You will find it a qucik read and interesting points .
And then the vile cynical hypocrites pretend that there are no scientists who disagree.
“In 2011 the Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever resigned from the American Physical Society after the group stated, “the evidence is incontrovertible: global warming is occurring.”
“The AGW skeptics want to debate the subject of AGW, and the AGW alarmists refuse to engage in a debate.”
Well, by quitting, you effectively let them win, by having scientific organizations filled with only alarmists. Good job.
Someone earlier made, in passing, a valid and insightful point which is worth expanding on, again.
This is not about the climate. Its not about doing anything to limit CO2 emissions. Its about separating people into those who are for us, and those who are against us. And its about using climate as an issue to organize around and radicalize.
What’s the evidence for this?
First, that the alarmists do not propose what in terms of their theory would be required and effective action. They do not propose, for instance, abolishing internal combustion engines and replacing our current transportation systems with low emission public transport, and moving living accomodation and business locations to fit. They do not propose that China and the developing world should reduce emissions or even reduce their coal use, despite the fact that China burns and mines more coal than the rest of the world put together, and emits over one third of total global CO2 emissions.
Second, that the alarmists instead focus on and demand very expensive actions which, according to their own theory, can have no material effect on temperatures. For instance, Paris. Or closing down coal generation specifically in the UK. Or erecting wind and solar. Or going to electric cars while leaving the rest of the infrastructure and social arrangements the same.
A classic instance of both of these together on Ars recently, a commenter who wanted to close down the Navajo plant in order to save the US coastline from rising sea levels. But if any coal use is threatening it, its not Navajo, its Chinese coal use.
If you accept this account, a lot of the bizarre aspects of climate alarmism fall into place and start to make sense. We do our best to suppress discussion of alternative explanations, because we are simply not interested in what’s happening in the climate or what if anything we should do about it.
All social media discussion forums must be purged of dissent, because their function is not discussion, its to act as a party organ for the faithful reinforcing belief and creating a sense of community and common belief.
We advocate measures which are impractical or too expensive because we do not want them to be implemented. We want there to be a perpetual state of alarm and a general feeling that important remedial action is being denied us.
We don’t worry about China or the developing world or global emissions, because we are focused on issues which we can radicalize on in our own countries. So we will focus on Trump’s membership withdrawal from Paris. Not on what Paris delivered or failed to, and not what in terms of CO2 tonnage the US withdrawal actually has and will lead to.
You can see all this at work very instructively in a recent Ars posting by the egregious John Timmer. He begins by saying that if all the Antarctic ice melts, sea levels will rise by 55 meters:
And then goes on to suggest that how long a rise in temperature lasts could be the thing that really drives a melt, rather than the level of the rise itself.
Notice the mechanism. You cite a condition and evoke a possibility that no-one, including you, thinks is in the slightest plausible. Then you go on to discuss a very mild form of it with the wild fantasy in the back of the readers mind to influence his attitude to the rest of the story. Here is one I made up earlier:
If a new exceptionally virulent pandemic emerges to which there is no antidote or vaccination and which has an 95% death rate, then it could wipe out 80% of humanity in a year. However, when considering the spread of the current strain of swine flu, scientists have come to the conclusion that the thing that drives its spread is not so much X as Y…
Yes, and if Russia had a well trained army of 100 million, and enough tanks and planes for them, and it decided to invade Europe, it could be at the Channel in a week and probably at the Med in three weeks…. If the Catholic religion is true, and if everyone not now a believer continues to reject it, the number of the eternally damned could be in the billions…. If there is a giant planet eating tortoise out there in space…..
Classic stuff. Does the author actually believe any of it? Does anyone actually believe any of it? I have come to the conclusion that pretty much no-one believes in CAGW. I cannot see anyone who acts as if they really do.
If there is no vaccine? There is still no evidence that the flu vaccine has ever been useful.
First thing you must remember about anything the Oregonian carries, they are card-carrying founding members of the Church of Global Warming (AKA Climate Change). It doesn’t matter what evidence is presented, just like members of a cult, they ignore anything that contradicts their dogma.
What this article failed to include from the Wikipedia link:
“When asked, Dr. Derocher clarified that, “Dr. Taylor retired from the Nunavut government last year… Involvement with the PBSG is restricted to those active in polar bear research and management and Dr. Taylor no longer fits within our guidelines of involvement… I will also note that our former Chair, Scott Schliebe of the US Fish and Wildlife Service is not attending this meeting. He also retired in 2008 and is no longer active in the field… This meeting is about coordinating ongoing and future research and management. Dr. Taylor is no longer in a position to assist with such issues. The PBSG has heard Dr. Taylor’s views on climate warming many times. I would note that Dr. Taylor is not a trained climatologist and his perspectives are not relevant to the discussions and intent of this meeting.”
Taylor was already retired!
Ivar Giaever resigned, he wasn’t forced out of anything. He’s 87. This is all in the article!
Cancellation of the panel did not ruin careers.
The whole post is misleading, especially the title.
“He’s 87”
Let’s imagine he wasn’t. Would a young scientist still have a carrer after the rejection by his “peers”? The cancellation of a panel is meaningless?
simple-touriste
What “rejection by his peers”? I see no evidence of that. He’s a Nobel Prize winner, which hardly denotes rejection or the ruination of his career.
The cancellation of a panel is not meaningless, but it doesn’t say anything about ruining anyone’s career.
There are many contrarian scientists that still have their jobs. I suspect that when scientists become outcasts, it is due more to the way in which they express their views. Peter Ridd, for example, said on TV News that not just individual scientists, but whole organizations were not to be trusted. To my knowledge, he has not done research directly contradicting the results of those scientists whose claims he rejected, which would be the normal, professional way of disputing research. In my opinion it was justified that he was censured by JCU. It seems quite a coincidence that he voiced these claims just at the time the book he contributed to was published, and interesting that the think tank that published it paid for some of his attorney’s fees.
Or there is Bob Carter. In 2013, JCU declined to renew his position as an adjunct professor. Perhaps this has something to do with the fact that “In 2012, documents acquired from The Heartland Institute think tank revealed that Carter was paid a monthly fee of US$1,667 ‘as part of a program to pay ‘high-profile individuals who regularly and publicly counter the alarmist [anthropogenic global warming] message’.'” (Wikipedia) This kind of thing is an obvious conflict of interest when it comes to doing scientific research or teaching about climate. The fact that he was hired as an adjunct professor after his retirement suggests that his views in themselves did not end his career.
Patrick Michaels worked for Edison Electric in their propaganda campaign to “reposition” global warming as hypothesis rather than fact – this is recorded in memos from 1991. In 2006, he was given $100,000 by the Intermountain Rural Electric Association. In 2008 he acknowledge that 40% of his funding came from the oil industry. And yet, as outspoken as he was, he remained a professor at U. Virginia until 2007. So how was he a victim?
There are a couple names from the list Allan posted, https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/21/destroying-the-careers-of-those-who-defy-the-climate-diktat/#comment-2464066
What are the stories here? Have people’s academic freedom been suppressed, or have they acted unprofessionally? To what degree have conflicts of interest played a role in the “ostracization” of researchers? What is the quality of their research on climate change? How many of these people are associated with think tanks rejecting the consensus and disputing their science, compared to the rate at which “mainstream” scientists do so? If so many skeptics say funding is driving scientists to produce certain results, doesn’t it make sense to consider it in the case of contrarians, too?
And what about the propaganda campaigns that started decades ago?
What about the American Meteorological Association survey that found that 17% of respondents had changed their mind in the previous 5 years, 87% of which flipped toward believing AGW? The consensus is gaining support; why isn’t the public following suit? I think it’s because of politics and policy, NOT because of the science.
“He’s a Nobel Prize winner, which hardly denotes rejection or the ruination of his career.”
That.
Can’t.
Be.
Are you missing the point on purpose? Once he had the Nobel, of course they weren’t going to remove it from him.
How do you explain the worldwide support for pathetic people like Noami Orekses?
Can’t you see that the stupidest “scientist” gets a pass if they recite the climate mantra, the vaccine mantra, or any mantra?
Or least criticizing climatism doesn’t get you confronted with the “justice system” (usually). Criticizing vaxxism does when you are a professional.
And THEY say Victor Orban is a threat to “academic freedom”, lol. Because going after a “field” that cannot even define its basic theory and basic concepts (*) is “against European values”.
(*) gender studies, plural, because they don’t even try to make it sound like they are talking about the same thing
But forbidding the simple fact of keeping statistics about the origin of people to try to see if any social problem is correlated with immigration is strictly forbidden in France. This apparently is compatible with “academic freedom”.
Climate Change is meant to offload the cost of cleaning up the pollution on to the taxpayer. Consider , How Two Glasses of Water disprove Global Warming Fraud: Pollution, Sewage and emrging Diseases https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-two-glasses-water-disprove-global-warming-fraud-ed-greenhalgh/ By claiming a big picture , like the huge face of the wizard of Oz, you don’t look behind the curtain to see what’s really going on. Polluters are using propaganda to off load clean up costs onto the taxppayer .And SJWs are buying it hook line and sinker .