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
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 .