JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

Scientist intimidated and forced into resigning: Lennart Bengtsson leaves the GWPF

Lennart Bengtsson joined the GWPF only two weeks ago. He’s a very well respected Swedish leading climate scientist. But he’s been put under — as he describes it — unbearable pressure to quit. Steve McIntyre calls it a fatwa.

What an extraordinarily raw letter:

Dear Professor Henderson,

I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expecting such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc.

I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.

Under these situation I will be unable to contribute positively to the work of GWPF and consequently therefore I believe it is the best for me to reverse my decision to join its Board at the earliest possible time.

With my best regards

Lennart Bengtsson

Even those within the climate “community” must recognize that end days are near. What an over-reaction presumably driven by fear, and compromising long-standing professional relationships. (Bengtsson knows who his real friends are now.)

The tribal witch-hunt speaks volumes about the strength of their arguments. For Bengtsson –what a back-handed compliment. If he did not have a scientific reputation, the tribe would not have “cared”.

Late thought: I don’t know that those long standing professional relationships will ever be the same. By resigning so publicly and explicitly Bengtsson has made the reasons for his resignation very clear. How many others resigned in the past from other politically incorrect groups and made some pat excuse instead in the hope of buying forgiveness and getting back in “the club”?

Statement from the GWPF:

Lennart Bengtsson Resigns: GWPF Voices Shock and Concern at the Extent of Intolerance within the Climate Science Community

  • Date: 14/05/14 The Global Warming Policy Foundation

It is with great regret, and profound shock, that we have received Professor Lennart Bengtsson’s letter of resignation from his membership of the GWPF’s Academic Advisory Council.

The Foundation, while of course respecting Professor Bengtsson’s decision, notes with deep concern the disgraceful intolerance within the climate science community which has prompted his resignation.

Professor Bengtsson’s letter of resignation from our Academic Advisory Council was sent to its chairman, Professor David Henderson.  His letter and Professor Henderson’s response are attached below.

Dr Benny Peiser, Director, The Global Warming Policy Foundation

WUWT has other responses.

About Lennart Bengtsson

 Professor Lennart Bengtsson has a long and distinguished international career in meteorology and climate research. He participated actively in the development of ECMWF (European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasting) where he was Head of Research 1975-1981 and Director 1982-1990. In 1991-2000 he was Director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg. Since 2000 he has been professor at the University of Reading and from 2008 the Director of the International Space Science Institute in Bern, Switzerland.

Professor Bengtsson has received many awards including the German Environmental Reward, The Descartes Price by the EU and the IMI price from the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO). He is member of many academies and societies and is honorary member of the American Meteorological Society, the Royal Meteorological Society and European Geophysical Union. His research work covers some 225 publications in the field of meteorology and climatology. In recent years he has been involved with climate and energy policy issues at the Swedish Academy of Sciences.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.4/10 (145 votes cast)
Scientist intimidated and forced into resigning: Lennart Bengtsson leaves the GWPF, 9.4 out of 10 based on 145 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/n5ll5z5

462 comments to Scientist intimidated and forced into resigning: Lennart Bengtsson leaves the GWPF

  • #
    PeterPetrum

    Slightly off subject [Moved from that thread -J], but relevant to “climate change” I note on the GWPF site that Lennart Bengtsson had been forced to resign from the board of the GWPF, after only three weeks, due to vituperation, threats and personal vilification from the warmists in his professional circle. He claimed that he could not work, feared for his health and even his life. So much for the scientific community. As a scientist myself, I mourn the loss of true scientific discussion. We are in a bad place at the moment.

    812

    • #
      Jon

      It’s just another perfect evidence that climate science has been so politicized that there no longer is room for science?

      I think the WWF or others political radicals with a international network is behind. And they succeeded not only, with force, getting Lennart to change his mind but also proving that climate science is no longer a science?

      I call them “Policy Based Climate inquisition?” PBCI

      141

      • #
        Nathan

        It’s important to note, Lennart changed his mind about the appointment, not about the evidence.

        81

    • #
      Ursus Augustus

      Eko Haram in Europe strikes!

      41

  • #
    Rogueelement451

    Breaking news
    Lennart Bengtsson Resigns from GWPF.
    Apparently fear and derision , intolerance and the threat of exclusion from his scientific work have led him to resign.
    How very sad that a person can no longer express an opinion without being vivisected by the warmists. This is seriously bad news all round.

    590

    • #
      Steve

      The pruge has started…..

      50

    • #
      Steve

      Argh……I need a keyboard that can spell…

      My comment should read:

      The purge has started….

      70

      • #
        Jon

        They are far to few to succeed with a purge. The only mean they have is policy based climate and enviro propaganda (mass control).
        But people are starting to take them less seriously?
        I think a lot of people is on the scheme, making a living off it, knowing that it’s based on a lie?

        40

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        I think that pruge sound like a perfectly good word.

        All we need to do, is to think of a definition for it.

        81

        • #
          ExWarmist

          Sounds like a combination of “Prune” & “Purge”.

          To curtail the perimeter of, and empty the content of…

          For example, The climate science community has begun a pruge of their membership, cutting numbers to a core group of politicised true believers, and emptying the community of its scientists.

          120

      • #
        Ursus Augustus

        I like “pruge”. A purge by precious prudes? By pinheaded pricks?

        A pruge by any other name is still a pruge.

        Very Shakespearean Steve.

        60

  • #
    Rogueelement451

    posted at WUWT in moderation.

    Andy Hurley says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    May 14, 2014 at 8:17 am

    It will be very interesting to see which respectable Journals pick up on this story and run an expose on the bastards who have intimidated the Professor .It really is about time that some decent coverage was done on [SNIP] who control the entire CAGW fraud.
    Lennart Bengtsson undoubtedly has tenure at his University post and we shall see how that goes. I would not be surprised that he resigns there too.
    I feel a “J’accuse” moment coming on , in no way should this be allowed to disappear in to the annals of tribal climate conflict, this man could and should be a flag bearer for rationality and good science .
    Let every leader know that this has happened , how it has happened and why it has happened. Let every single alarmist [SNIP] hang his head in shame . This is beyond belief.

    480

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      It is not beyond belief.

      It is what you get, when bureaucrats get their hands on the grant money, and it is they who decide where that money will be spent. I may put in a submission for funding to research something (in the geopolitical arena), only to find that a serious chunk of the grant has been diverted into a study on the efficacy if school lunches, because some bureaucrat thinks that fat kids are more important than national security.

      91

  • #

    Lennart Bengtsson has had ‘tenure’ for quite some time. He is now 79 and hardly has to worry about damaging his future career. He is a member of KVA – the swedish Royal Academy of Science since over 20 years.

    I think (and hope) that this won’t be the end of this sad story, but maybe part of the endgame for the CAGW-cultist’s cabal …

    340

  • #

    Added: I don’t know that those long standing professional relationships will ever be the same. By resigning so publicly and explicitly Bengtsson has made the reasons for his resignation very clear. How many others resigned in the past from other politically incorrect groups and made some pat excuse instead in the hope of buying forgiveness and getting back in “the club”?

    481

    • #
      michael hart

      I’m still trying to figure it out.

      Have maybe his professional colleagues, or their funded institutions or journals, been “made an offer they can’t refuse” and he is now withdrawing as a personal act to help them? He clearly seems less likely to produce for the GWPF, but what he has said, he has said. It can’t be unsaid, and he hasn’t tried.

      61

    • #
      Txomin

      But he did not say that others were acting out of fear. Interesting, if you consider it.

      20

    • #
      Newport_Mac

      I’m not so sure about any interest in getting back into “the club”. He has made some very pointed remarks about the IPCC club.

      During one recent interview Dr. Bengtsson explained:

      I think the climate community shall be more critical and spend more time to understand what they are doing instead of presenting endless and often superficial results and to do this with a critical mind. I do not believe that the IPCC machinery is what is best for science in the long term. We are still in a situation where our knowledge is insufficient and climate models are not good enough. What we need is more basic research freely organized and driven by leading scientists without time pressure to deliver and only deliver when they believe the result is good and solid enough. It is not for scientists to determine what society should do. In order for society to make sensible decisions in complex issues it is essential to have input from different areas and from different individuals. The whole concept behind IPCC is basically wrong.

      70

      • #
        Newport_Mac

        Related links to his recent comments.

        Lennart Bengtsson: “The whole concept behind IPCC is basically wrong”
        Door Marcel Crok
        May 1, 2014

        Lennart Bengtsson speaks out
        Judith Curry
        May 3, 2014

        I could be wrong but all the hate mail he received is likely related to his comments not his appointment to the GWPF Board. Then again perhaps its both as the GWPF would extend is views into policy recommendations.

        30

        • #
          Niff

          I agree, which is why his resignation from the GWPF Academic group won’t assuage his guilt. He’s doomed. I wonder whether he will continue to speak out for truth once he realises that.

          00

          • #
            Newport_Mac

            Hi Niff,
            His guilt? He is guilty of nothing.

            “The whole concept behind IPCC is basically wrong.”

            Of course the concept is wrong. It has been since the UN instructed the IPCC to Find Human Impact on the climate. That’s what they tried to do and sadly all they tried to do.

            They also instructed the same group to not only invent the problem but to also define the solution. This, in and of itself, is Failure by Design.

            “In order for society to make sensible decisions in complex issues it is essential to have input from different areas and from different individuals.

            He is telling the truth and guilty of nothing.

            00

    • #

      Do you, or does anyone know the origination of ‘CAGW?’ Has it been formalized or is it blog talk? Apt and fitting, just wondering when and where it was first introduced.

      00

      • #
        the Griss

        AGW was around for a while (until they had to change it to climate change because warming stopped because they could no longer get away with as much data adjustment)

        Imagine how warm it would be now if it weren’t for the satellite record. !!!!

        .. but the absurdly shrill predictions of alarmists, “we are all going to burn” probably cause the climate realists to start adding the C sometime around 2010 I’m guessing

        00

  • #

    The religious intolerance of the true believers.
    They will not deal with those who doubt.
    They will lie and cheat to make the lives of the infidels difficult.
    They leave no room for anybody who openly discusses anything outside of the scriptures; or anybody who talks to infidels without spite and venom.
    They do not tolerate any doubt in their beliefs.

    420

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      And there goes freedom of speech, right down the drain.

      160

      • #
        ExWarmist

        Freedom of Speech vs Mandatory Censorship = the real battle.

        There – that’s now articulated.

        90

    • #
      Steve

      This sort of behaviour surprises me – clearly the warmists have lost, yet they fight to the last man like germans in Stalingrad…and we know how that went….

      100

      • #
        David

        I get your meaning Steve but historically you are not correct. General Von Paulus surrendered at Stalingrad – no fight to the last man there. The Japanese on the other hand frequently did.

        40

        • #
          Steve

          The germans only surrendered because they ran out of food…but had they suplies, they would have kept going….

          20

          • #
            David

            Maybe yes, maybe no about fighting on. Whatever the reason they did not fight to the last man. Never-the-less I agree with your assessment of the warmists.

            20

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        I think you mean the Spartans at Thermopylae.

        Which is very apt, seeing that thermos is Greek, for heat.

        71

  • #
    leon0112

    Lysenko and Soviet science is coming back as Mann and climate science.

    330

    • #
      Owen Morgan

      The Lysenko analogy is certainly very apt, but so it has been for quite a while.

      100

      • #

        That Lysenkoism should have taken place under the regime of the Soviets has a certain kind of internal logic. That CAGW should happen in the free world is….what word would describe it? I think it’s an indication of how far the free world has drifted Leftward towards the notions of top down, command and control everything. The free world seems to be in a narcoleptic state spinning toward centralization, one size fits all, multicultural, politically correct, de-industrializing, anti-human, anti-life, anti-prosperity, anti-growth binge of nihilism and fear.
        This is the Zeitgeist, the climate in which the likes of James Hansen and his Hokey Stick and Michael Mann and Phil Jones can operate. No self-respecting civilization or society would tolerate this crap.
        We have allowed the Left, with it’s fear, guilt and desire to chain every man to every other man to go unchallenged in any fundamental way for almost a 100 years, and we are reaping the results.

        100

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    I’ve remarked before that these incidents of oppression are few and far between, yet their effect should not be underestimated because it only takes a few occasional examples and the news spreads through the herd quickly.
    Best of luck to the professor.

    Look for Dr Bengtsson’s forthcoming book, “AR5: The Satanic Verses”.

    190

    • #
      tom0mason

      Or
      AR5:Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea?

      20

      • #
        Andrew McRae

        Sir, I protest at your inappropriate analogy based on a gross misrepresentation of AR5.
        At least 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea had elements of science in it.

        ;) But y’know, if we’re stretching the analogy…

        I vaguely recall that the Nautilus was challenged to go from the Atlantic to the Indian ocean as fast as possible, and captain Nemo accomplished this using a secret natural underwater tunnel which led from the Mediterranean Sea to the Indian Ocean underneath Africa.
        Did captain Pachauri ever figure out how to transition from a warming world to a cooling world without the good ship IPCC running aground?

        00

  • #

    One should not be entirely surprised at this turn of events. recently natalie Bennett, leader of the UK Green patrt stated just how tolerant she and her party are…

    The Green Party of England and Wales has called for a purge of government advisers and ministers who do not share its views on climate change. Any senior adviser refusing to accept “the scientific consensus on climate change” should be sacked.

    Bennett said: “We need the whole government behind this. This is an emergency situation we’re facing now. We need to take action. We need everyone signed up behind that.”

    Pressed on the issue, she agreed that even the chief veterinary officer should be removed if he didn’t sign up to the view on climate change also taken by the Green Party.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26187711

    This is their modus operandi

    400

    • #
      Owen Morgan

      And that is from the leader of a “party” which boasts all of one (count ‘em – I mean her) MP (for the New Loonsville constituency, formerly known as Brighton); also one (count ‘em – whoops, I meant her, again) appointed member of the noble House of Loons. Quite where, on that record of electoral success, she derives her mandate to demand that green policy must become irreducible government policy for the rest of time, I don’t quite see.

      I do strongly suspect that it is already the case that nobody who doesn’t sing from the AGW hymn-sheet gets anywhere in DECC, which is one reason why I have long maintained that DECC is beyond reform and must be abolished altogether, with the former employees encouraged to found a collective farm on Rockall, the other reason being that it never needed to exist in the first place.

      230

    • #
      MurrayA

      This is how they can claim “the science is settled”. There’s a name for this kind of (apology for) argument: it’s called argumentum ad baculum (appeal to force). It’s very effective, even if utterly reprehensible. It really is the last refuge of the scoundrel.

      270

    • #
      Manfred

      The gulf between fantasy and reality grows daily. The faithful plan their congregations and spout their prophesies mechanically. The receding goal of global enslavement was tantalisingly close, but like that slippery bar of soap in the shower, continually eludes their grasping fingers, leaving them open to assault by an ever growing and unpleasant reality – powerlessness, unemployment and quite possibly the inability to ever sit comfortably again.

      We have 500 days to avoid climate chaos

      French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said.

      And I know that President Obama and John Kerry himself are committed on this subject and I’m sure that with them, with a lot of other friends, we shall be able to reach success in this very important matter.

      ‘The organizers have high hopes for the Paris event known in U.N. jargon as the 21st conference of the parties (COP21) – the parties being the signatories to the 1992 U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change and the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.

      White House press secretary Jay Carney stated:

      There’s no question that this is a global effort that has to be undertaken because of the nature of carbon emissions around the world.

      Meanwhile in the Real World, the inconvenient truths persist “They’re Not Melting: 87% of Himalayan Glaciers Are ‘Stable’”

      The results of the present study indicate that most of the glaciers were in a steady state compared to the results of other studies carried out for the period prior to 2001,” the study authors conclude. “This period of monitoring almost corresponds to hiatus in global warming in the last decade.

      “Of the 2,018 Himalayan glaciers monitored via satellite and validated by 15 field visits, 1,752 (86.8 percent) were holding steady, 248 (12.3 percent) were retreating, and 18 (0.9 percent) were advancing, the researchers found. The glaciers are located in the Karakoram, Himachal, Zanskar, Uttarakhand, Nepal and Sikkim regions, and range in size from less than one square kilometer (45 percent of those monitored) to larger than 20 square kilometers (97 glaciers).”
      However, a February 2012 study also found that the glacier melt IPCC predicted had not occurred, and that the Himalayas lost virtually no ice during the previous decade.

      Nonetheless, the IPCC is still claiming that the Himalayan glaciers will be a fraction of their current size by century’s end.

      200

      • #
        Peter Carabot

        Heard on the ABC: the shift in wind patterns is responsible for melting Antartica on one side and building ice on the other….obviously caused by the mounting CO2 levels!
        We are at the end, nothing else to blame. We had The farting cows, the misterious absorption of heat kilometers under water, nutritional deficencies, now it’s the wind! What next?

        20

    • #
      tom0mason

      No one expects the Spanish Climate Inquisition.

      20

  • #
    richsrd

    “Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship”

    yep, this is what second raters do!

    JERUSALEM (AP) — When Israeli scientist Dan Shechtman claimed to have stumbled upon a new crystalline chemical structure that seemed to violate the laws of nature, colleagues mocked him, insulted him and exiled him from his research group.

    After years in the scientific wilderness, though, he was proved right. And on Wednesday, he received the ultimate vindication: the Nobel Prize in chemistry.

    400

    • #
      vic g gallus

      There is also the example of Pasher the Bus driver. Then there is Eyring who might have missed out because he was Mormon.

      Real-life science is very bitchy.

      50

      • #
        cohenite

        Real-life science is very bitchy.

        And yet AGW ‘scientists’ pretend to be holier than thou and above the grubby, hurly burly of real life so that even when they break the rules and lie and cheat it is for a noble cause which exonerates them immediately.

        A grub is a grub no matter how many letters it has after its name and the metamorphosis into that butterfly never happens.

        40

        • #
          cohenite

          Speaking of bitchy what about Cook’s and the U of Q’s latest effort.

          20

          • #
            vic g gallus

            Yes. The grub that gave me grief in my short career was forced to leave that university but got another gig at UQ. I better not elaborate.

            00

    • #

      The physics community did the same thing to Fleischmann and Pons, pilloried them first, and ignored them later. No thought to, if this might be true it would be a fantastic boon for human kind, let’s have a serious look. Just close ranks and save their professional asses by denying it cause it wasn’t invented here.
      MIT and Caltech each did a quick study that ‘proved them wrong’ when it found nothing. Turns out they didn’t leave a process running long enough (the time needed to load a metal lattice with hydrogen or deuterium atoms). When one of the lead researchers at Caltech was told that they hadn’t, he snapped back, ‘It ran plenty long enough!’ This without any knowledge.

      “Other human issues also were a significant factor in the cold fusion controversy. Thermonuclear fusion researchers had tried unsuccessfully for 38 years to create practical energy from their experiments. That research program at one time was funded by the U.S. government to the tune of $1 billion per year and had been on a steep decline when Pons and Fleischmann proposed their much simpler and less expensive alternative. So when the state of Utah asked Congress for money from the thermonuclear fusion budget, things didn’t go so well, to say the least.”

      Science is not the holier than thou, rational, logical enterprise its practitioners would paint it as.

      I do hope that evidence for the reality of LENR (what cold fusion is called these days) is found soon so that Fleischmann and Pons are awarded the Nobel Prize and not posthumously.

      50

  • #
    CrossBorder

    O/T, but I couldn’t find a contact addy for Jo:

    The future of energy http://t.co/A35EmwzD6l pic.twitter.com/SuL3T23qkg— ThinkProgress (@thinkprogress) May 14, 2014

    They’re claiming “Germany Sets New Record, Generating 74 Percent Of Energy Needs From Renewable Energy”

    Riiiggghhhttt!

    30

  • #
    TdeF

    Climate Change gave Green parties an undreamed of political power. Saving the whales did no such thing. So of course the business of Global Warming is essential to their continued ability to dominate governments. Does anyone in the communist Greens really believe what they say? Did the Catholic church believe that the indulgences sold would work? It is all about politics, money, power, jobs, careers. It was never about the truth.

    As the warmists, Lord Monckton’s Profiteers of Doom shift their shonky excuses to the deep oceans and extreme events, they are counting their money and retreating to their beach houses for very comfortable retirement, legends in their own minds. The rule of such carpetbaggers is that there is always someone who will believe you, someone who is easily scared. God forbid anyone should actually check the facts. Facts and rationalism are the enemies of religion and fear of hell fire will get the money coming in. No one is scared by the cold.

    310

    • #
      vic g gallus

      Did the Catholic church believe that the indulgences sold would work?

      No. Only confessions got you forgiveness. Indulgences were part of the penance, to show that you meant it, and only for minor sins.

      60

  • #
    leon0112

    In Soviet terms, he was being purged. All for agreeing to talk with people of diverse views.

    240

    • #

      But in these days the purging is in full view of a large public thanks to the internet and blogs such as Jo’s. And not only our community, there will be many in the Climate Community who will not agree with this behaviour. This behaviour could very likely be the beginning of a further revolt from within. Let us support and help the defectors all we can.

      270

      • #
        Owen Morgan

        Don’t forget: the Moscow show trials were done with a blaze of publicity, too. Most Western newspapers slavishly repeated the Stalinist line, continuing the practice of several years, including those of the Terror Famine. At that time, Walter Duranty (British, I’m sorry to say) was the toast of the English-speaking press corps in Moscow for his Pulitzer-winning despatches to the New York Times. Yet he is known to have confided more than once, at the time, that he was perfectly well aware that his reports were utter lies, something to which he never openly confessed. I think there are plenty like Duranty today in the climate “community”, who knowingly sacrifice the truth, in favour of undeserved honour, fame and, of course, big salaries.

        Decades after Duranty was exposed, by the way, his Pulitzer officially stands. According to the review board, it’s not clear that he deliberately tried to mislead. Except that it is. I’m surprised he didn’t claim a Nobel Prize, as well.

        160

      • #
        PeterK

        The hounding of Lennart Bengtsson that resulted in him resigning from the board of the GWPF reminds me of a historical parallel – The Battle of the Bulge. This is the last desperate act of the AGW folks before the inevitable defeat that is at hand – and the Global Warming / Climate Change meme will finally be put to death and hopefully all the faithful will be taken to task for all of the indirect deaths that have resulted worldwide from this fake science.

        However, this may only be the end of Act 6 of a 10, or 15 Act march to Agenda 21.

        These communists / socialists / progressives have a way of morphing into something else as they march relentlessly to their objective.

        100

  • #
    Jaymez

    Lennart Bengtsson had the capacity to suggest he might derail their gravy train. It is their livelihoods at stake. What does a failed Climate Scientist do when you have been wrong on just about everything? The only chance you have of retaining some credibility is to be one of the many who backed the wrong horse, and to stop anyone who is thinking of changing sides and backing the right horse!

    250

  • #
    blackadderthe4th

    ‘forced into resigning: Lennart Bengtsson leaves the GWPF’ all I have to say about the GWPF, well not really!

    ‘The use of factually inaccurate material without a legitimate basis in science is an abuse of the foundation’s [GWPF] charitable status, which is all the more reprehensible because the public is more trusting of pronouncements made by charities’

    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/lord-lawsons-climatechange-think-tank-risks-being-dismantled-after-complaint-it-persistently-misled-public-8659314.html

    [We hope you won't be surprised when something said by Stern and printed in the Independent is turns out to be irrelevant. However we'd be delighted if all it took to take down a publication was proof that what they had printed was wrong or inaccurate. The IPCC reports would all have to be withdrawn from publication! -Mod]

    342

    • #
      blackadderthe4th

      But the IPCC does not deliberately set out to be economical with the truth [Snip], far from it in fact.

      146

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        That depends on what whether you mean the political wing of the IPCC, or the scientific lowest-common-denominator input to the political process, or the public relations editing that occurs prior to publication.

        331

      • #
        bullocky

        ba4: “But the IPCC does not deliberately set out to be economical with the truth [Snip], far from it in fact.”
        -
        Just ask Rajendra Pachauri!
        -
        http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/01/21/grey-literature-ipcc-insiders-speak-candidly/

        190

      • #
        the Griss

        No, they ignore the truth completely.

        221

      • #
        James Bradley

        BAD4, you seem to lack executive function.

        161

      • #
        Steve

        The IPCC is a political organisation, not scientific.

        “All things are subject to interpretation. Whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.”
        ― Friedrich Nietzsche

        90

        • #
          blackadderthe4th

          Yep and Nietzsche was always coming out with various statements, but most were oxymorons!

          015

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            What?

            Do you know what an oxymoron is? It is not an uneducated person wasting oxygen. That only applies to you.

            An oxymoron is a figure of speech that is self-contradictory, like “make haste slowly”.

            Now give us some examples of Nietzsche using figures of speech like that. And when you do, justify why most of his statements were like that.

            You raise stupid to a new low.

            130

            • #
              blackadderthe4th

              ‘There are no facts, only interpretations.’, so we don’t know the speed of light? Oh, dear me!

              011

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                Well, you are not a Doctor of Philosophy, so we can’t expect you to understand. But you chose a good example.

                At one time, children were taught that the speed of light was 186,000 miles per second, in a vacuum. That was a number they had to remember. The number itself, was mandated by the educational authorities, and was deemed close enough for school physics class. But it was only an approximation. The real value was closer to 186,388.889, which is itself an approximation.

                At one point, the educational authorities of the day decreed that the SI units would be taught in school, to bring them into line with Academia. So children were taught that the speed of light was 300,000 km/s, and that was the number they had to remember. But it still was not correct. The official value is 299 792 458 m/s in a perfect vacuum, and that is only accurate because the International Standards Body says it is.

                The actual definition of the speed of light is expressed in terms of the length of the “standard metre”, and the “standard second”, in a theoretical perfect vacuum with zero gravity. But since we cannot have a perfect vacuum nor a measurement system with absolutely no errors we still don’t know the exact speed of light, anywhere other than our own solar system. There is also evidence that the speed of light might vary, depending on the gravitational pull of nearby stars, but that has yet to be confirmed.

                So Steve’s quote from Friedrich Nietzsche, is spot on the money. The speed of light is, what it is, because some people, sitting in a committee, have decided, that is what it is.

                90

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                As an addendum, one of my colleagues points out that the Metre is now defined by the distance that light travels in a given time. So the speed of light is self defining. Isn’t that good?

                70

              • #
                Another Graeme

                Rereke, I remember reading a little while back that the speed of light is also slowing. Do you know if this is the case?

                10

              • #
                vic g gallus

                I thought it was 1.8026175 × 10^12 furlong per fortnight, in a vacuum.

                More importantly, the speed of light was inferred from experiments and so dependent on the equipment, person doing it and the interpretation of the results.

                As mentioned above, the speed of light is only exactly known now because a metre is defined in terms of the speed of light.

                50

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                Another Graeme,

                Well, I have also read that the speed of light is affected by gravity, which implies that the Photon has mass. Isn’t that cute? ;-)

                Vic,

                Which was exactly the point that BA4 was making, except he did it totally by accident, in trying to be sarcastic. What was that saying about an infinite number of monkeys with typewriters …?

                20

              • #
                Andy (old name Andy)

                The following are the SI units

                Unit of length – meter: The meter is the length of the path travelled (sic) by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second.

                Unit of time – second: The second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the cesium 133 atom.

                So light speed is used to define the meter and radiation for the second. This is then used to define the speed of light.

                So previously measured differences can no longer exist as the meter and the second will vary to suit. Trust Crap blather to use circular reasoning as an example of a fact.

                00

              • #
                PhilJourdan

                In a vacuum or through water?

                00

          • #
            the Griss

            BA4, you are an oxymoron… starved of air.

            60

          • #
            James Bradley

            That’s really funny, during the course of my duties I’m often accused of being one of Nietzsche’s Gentlemen.

            30

      • #
        PhilJourdan

        The IPCC sets out to be selective of their truth. They have no concept of objective truth.

        100

      • #
        tom0mason

        BA4,
        Stop trying to pretend to be niave, of course the IPCC is often economical with the actuality. They are after all only a political organisation with the merest coupçon science barely whafting about them like a cheap perfume.

        40

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      And so, Ba 4th, I should accept your head butting contest between two competing and disagreeing groups as meaning anything? ReallY?

      Even you can make a better argument than that.

      140

    • #
      vic g gallus

      The article states that a complaint was made and

      The commission cautioned that the assessment was at an early stage and wouldn’t necessarily lead to a full investigation, or “statutory inquiry”.

      Nasty stuff but what would you expect from a paper with less integrity than a university rag.

      100

      • #
        vic g gallus

        I should add that I didn’t read the article. I just scanned through it looking for the clarification.

        40

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          It’s certainly not a very encouraging thing is it?

          So much of the stuff being done now has all the earmarks of someone wanting to be a “me too” to get in on the recognition and the 15 minutes of fame. Or worse, trying to keep up a career that never had a useful purpose in the first place.

          40

          • #
            vic g gallus

            Most of the science that has been done for a long time is parroting of real scientists.

            I was encouraged to go see a talk by an academic who was young, had a very large research group and looked a lot like me. He talked for over an hour on the brilliant work of others that his group could copy. It think that it was a hint that I should try it as well. There are powerful people encouraging this in all fields, and discouraging others (I had to get out before it did my head in).

            I don’t know how this relates to my comment, though. I was trying to point out that when you see a sensational headline, scan down towards the end for the clarification that stops the paper being sued. I hope your not under the impression that I’m a climate scientist? Well your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!

            30

            • #
              Roy Hogue

              Vic,

              I realized almost as soon as I saw you commenting that from what you said you’re a teacher. Am I right?

              And I should add, a very sharp teacher.

              20

              • #
                vic g gallus

                No. I did give it a go though after quitting science because I enjoyed demonstrating at university. School children came across as very alien and although I worked them out, and learnt to be an effective teacher, it became stressfull because of other teachers.

                30

              • #
                PhilJourdan

                @Vic

                School children came across as very alien

                That’s because they are! ;-)

                10

            • #
              Steve

              Well yes……on matters Python, I guess the warmists would consider the loss of both arms and legs in this battle as “its just a flesh wound……”

              20

  • #

    This is absolutely appalling behavior.

    I don’t worry about climate. However, I do worry about the adverse consequences of climate change (warming) advocacy and hysteria.

    When the climate change house of cards finally collapse, how will it impact the credibility of honest scientists?

    350

    • #
      rogueelement451

      The credibility of Science has been in question ever since newspapers figured out that scaring people is a great idea.w
      War of the world’s was released as a news item in the 50, s and caused a huge panic when people believed the Martians were coming . journalists are lazy …check out Nutticcelli. ..any story is a good story the scarier the better.so revamp the same old same old crap and luxuriate in the plaudits of the converted. Some time soon we are all going to have to lift our heads above the parapet s and challenge these ….snippers….every single time they talk ..snip…I am furious about this. Let us please form some sort of greater community to wipe out the ignorance displayed by Warmist.
      o have

      180

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        The threat to science is becoming a threat to free speech which is even more valuable than science because without free speech we are all slaves. Who will care about science when you cannot publish your opinion about some subject, climate change or otherwise, when you cannot speak an opinion without fear of reprisal?

        It’s happening more and more.

        Freedom of speech is the very first thing mentioned in the very First Amendment to the Constitution of the United states. That’s how important they thought it was back in 1791.

        250

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Yes, that may well be, but the actual YouTube clip of them explaining why that amendment was actually necessary has been taken down.

          So it is no longer relevant to the vaporous alarmists who perpetually picture themselves living in a disaster movie, of their own imaginings.

          150

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            Yes! They don’t like the First Amendment above all other things about the Constitution. But my argument stands on the basis of the position of that guarantee in the Bill of Rights and its very existence there, not on the basis of anything on YouTube. The writings of the founders of the Constitution and the architects of the Bill of Rights are still there for anyone who will look. They used to be taught in school in abbreviated form. I wonder what’s being taught now. Never mind. I know.

            I’d hate to think that my freedom to say what I’m saying right now depends on YouTube. What is YouTube that it can guarantee me anything? They aren’t even a forum that will allow you to put up any old thing you might want to put up. They very effectively censor certain things as testified to by the complaints of more than one person I have seen on the internet and more than one video suddenly vanished and replaced with notice that it violating YouTube’s policy.

            100

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              I was being facetious when I made that comment. I was trying to imply that the YouTube clip, that was taken down, was of the Founding Fathers preparing the Bill of Rights.

              Haven’t you noticed that BA4 has a tendency to use YouTube as a definitive source? He is not the only one.

              90

              • #
                Bulldust

                C’mon we all know Connollyopedia err Wikipedia is the source of all truth, especially on ‘climate change.’

                70

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                Ah, so “Wikipedia will set you free”? That has a certain ring to it.

                50

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                Sorry, Rereke, if I misinterpreted your intent a little. It’s a really sore subject with me. But I did realize that you weren’t completely serious.

                As for YouTube, of course it’s an authority. Everything on the internet Is true. You aren’t supposed to lie on the Internet. You know that. ;-)

                20

              • #
                Roy Hogue

                BA4 makes the most vacuous arguments I can remember seeing on this blog. I would be ashamed to do stuff like he does.

                30

              • #
                GreggB

                “Wikipedreit macht frei”?

                10

        • #
          Rod Stuart

          I attended this symposium last Friday Roy. YOu wol dhave enjoyed it.

          10

  • #
    Al in Cranbrook

    How much as changed from the days of Galileo?

    Really?

    Every so-called “scientist” on the planet should hang their heads in shame.

    210

  • #
    Jack Maloney

    The sad thing is that the climatology lynch mob won’t even feel embarrassed by this. Since when has suppression of dissent become “liberal”?

    180

    • #
      the Griss

      That chief of slimebags, Connelly is actually crowing about it.

      What a totally disgusting piece of [self-snip] he is.

      Not a stoat, but a weasel and a worm.

      141

      • #
        handjive

        Connelly, the slime, posts this:
        [My heart bleeds for the poor dahling; he's such a delicate flower. Perhaps someone who wilts so quickly shouldn't have tried to push his way into the sunlight -W] in response to a dissenting comment #24

        Does the same ‘thinking’ (& I use that term very loosely regarding Connelly) apply to climate scientists who receive death threats?

        Should those “dahlings”. or “delicate flowers” have ventured into the sunlight?

        William Connelly, stoat, you are a gutless idiot fooled by your own self inflated opinion.
        Come defend yourself.

        191

        • #
          bullocky

          handjive;
          ‘Connelly, the slime, posts this: (in respect of Dr.Bengtsson)
          [My heart bleeds for the poor dahling; he's such a delicate flower. Perhaps someone who wilts so quickly shouldn't have tried to push his way into the sunlight -W]‘
          -
          This spiteful rant from (William Connelley) the editor of over 5000 articles at Wikipedia gives substance to concerns about the integrity of the ‘official’ position on climate change.
          -
          http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/19/wikibullies-at-work-the-national-post-exposes-broad-trust-issues-over-wikipedia-climate-information/

          61

          • #
            Bulldust

            Interesting you mention his infamour Wiki history revisionism … I posted on his blog:

            No doubt Mr Connolly has a bit of Wiki revision to do adding Dr Bengtsson to the CAGW sceptic blacklist… or did your socks already get to it? Never mind the science… full steam ahead with the character assassination!

            But that has to be ‘moderated.’ Presumably it will only go through if he can think of something snide to say … something which is witty (in his head).

            50

          • #
            Bulldust

            He reminds me of the type that has to go that one step too far just to show he is more politically correct than everyone else. The logical conclusion is a 10:10.org final solution in his sick little mind. Of course he would reply saying I lost the debate for Gowdinning myself … despite him being the one with the projection problems.

            60

      • #
        Radical Rodent

        Ah. “ScienceBlog”; a site that should be held accountable to the lie of the first word used in its conflated title. A site from which I am proud to announce that I have been blocked because I presented arguments for which they had no valid answer, and I have no pretentions on being called a “scientist”. A site which wilfully supports talk of murder in front of an audience in a Nobel conference that gleefully applauded the idea, a talk given by a “philosopher” who could confidently predict the future (thereby, I would have thought, dismissing her claim to philosophy, but anyhoo…).

        To put yourself on that site is, in my opinion, equivalent to volunteering for camp guard duties.

        40

  • #
    Peter Miller

    This is just another illustration of why much of what is called ‘climate science’ is just a nasty little club of bully boys.

    Is there any evidence to the contrary, because I cannot think of anything?

    150

  • #
    motvikten

    I have made a comment on an earlier post about Lennart Bengtsson, a Swedish Prof.em. in meteorology.

    My comment on the issue at this post can be red on Wattsupwiththat.
    Note my reference to the article in Energy & Environment.
    I specially recommend JoNova to read the article.

    20

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      It would be nice to post a link to your WUWT comment. Otherwise everyone spends a lot of time searching for it or says, nuts, I wont bother.

      Thanks

      Roy :-)

      60

      • #
        motvikten

        http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/14/shameless-climate-mccarthyism-on-full-display-scientist-forced-to-resign/

        http://www.issibern.ch/~bengtsson/pdf/global_energy_problem.pdf

        “This combined with the need to raise energy production is expected to increase the concentration of carbon dioxide to approach a value twice that of the pre-industrial time towards the middle of the century. Such a high value is likely to give rise to irreversible changes in the climate of the Earth.

        It seems that two major actions are needed and should be implemented with highest priority. These are carbon dioxide sequestration and increased investment in nuclear power, preferably using fast breeder reactors”

        00

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          It seems that two major actions are needed and should be implemented with highest priority. These are carbon dioxide sequestration and increased investment in nuclear power, preferably using fast breeder reactors”

          You should not join the fear of carbon dioxide quite so easily because:

          – present climate is not at all in agreement with the predictions of any computer model and is the same as it has been for the last 13 years in spite of the increasing CO2 level with only normal weather variability; and it’s insignificantly different from the climate of 100 years ago, again with only normal weather variability

          – there is no empirical evidence that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can do what it’s being blamed for and this is the weak link in the chain that breaks the chain and makes the whole global warming claim into a joke

          I suggest looking at The Skeptic’s Handbook, available for reading or download on this site. You’ll find it here. It’s the major argument against the global warming scare.

          And thanks for posting the two links.

          20

  • #
    TdeF

    Is this right? Prominent Australian scientists and utter skeptics

    Professor Robert Carter
    Professor Ian Plimer

    are both on the GWPF council? I guess they are younger and can take the pressure, but I would hardly call them warmists. Who really put pressure on
    Lennart Bengtsson? What was the nature of such pressure? Surely Carter and Plimer must be under immense pressure too, but what is going on? Is this just high pressure politics from a group within the GWPF and how on earth did Carter and Plimer get positions if Bengtsson is not welcome.

    31

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      TdeF,

      In Plimer’s case I can imagine they don’t think he’s very convincing, which he is not, not being very good at debate or presenting his case, at least in everything I’ve seen of him. And so they tolerate him. He has only two published books that I can find and they lack more than a little credibility with his detractors because of his direct association with mining interests.

      But you’ve got to wonder.

      30

    • #
      handjive

      Ian Plimer is the only Australian citizen the Australian government creates a internet web page to smear.

      The government is very threatened by one man & his book for some reason.

      Maybe Abbott burn Plimer’s books when no-one is looking.

      61

      • #
        LevelGaze

        Handjive,

        That document is more than 3 years old. The government has changed and there is a very different “climate” in Australia today.
        I doubt we’ll see any more of this sort of rubbish from the Department of Environment from now on.

        Mal.

        30

        • #
          handjive

          Abbott can wipe the Climate Commission website in days, but, this is allowed to stand?

          Abbott owns that web page now.

          50

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        handjive,

        Interesting because the book is aimed at students, school age kids, the very group the global warmers want to capture. I would suspect that’s why the interest in Plimer and the web page to discredit him rather than anything to do with the quality of his argument or the fact that he’s arguing against global warming.

        10

    • #
      J.Knowles

      Perhaps times are changing and the urgency to prop up the man-made warming charade is ever more pressing and it now requires more radical action.
      The GWPF can continue as before but knowing that it is most definitely causing angst in high places.
      My personal view is that from 2014 we will see more serious issues associated with the declining sunspot number.

      40

    • #

      TdF — both Carter and Plimer spoke out years ago, and have faced the heat ever since. Perhaps starting younger makes it easier. You get used to the pressure.

      There have been longstanding campaigns to discredit both all along. Carters university even revoked his office, then his title and even his email address for no scientific reason. Such is the purge.

      Plimer remember, was digging himself right into the creationists-v-evolutionist debate before the climate change one. You could argue he’s a man who likes the hot edge of the public fray.

      I suspect Bengtsson did not realize how ugly things would get since he hasn’t really stepped out publicly in an unmistakeable way — even though he’s been rational all along.

      150

      • #
        motvikten

        Read the article I linked to!

        http://www.issibern.ch/~bengtsson/pdf/global_energy_problem.pdf

        “This combined with the need to raise energy production is expected to increase the concentration of carbon dioxide to approach a value twice that of the pre-industrial time towards the middle of the century. Such a high value is likely to give rise to irreversible changes in the climate of the Earth.

        It seems that two major actions are needed and should be implemented with highest priority. These are carbon dioxide sequestration and increased investment in nuclear power, preferably using fast breeder reactors”

        Bengtsson and the energy committee of the Royal Swedish Academy of Science are working hard to stop wind power and promote nuclear power.

        No climate change due to CO2, so no need for renewable, but use nuclear as it is low carbon. I call this intellectual meltdown.

        Bengtsson is the man responsible for the document used to motivate the Swedish aggressive global view on climate change.

        Several times I have seen people asking him to put forward a new document, in the name of the Academy of Science. He has answered by silence.

        I suppose the pressure he writes about now is from his colleagues in the Swedish Royal Academy of Science.

        You can not have a view on Bengtsson if you not have knowledge of the “Swedish nuclear trauma”.

        10

        • #

          I’ve skimmed over the report and conclude that Bengtsson must be highly specialised in another field.

          He writes e.g.

          The world’s annual production of nuclear energy presently amounts to about 8 PWh, but only ca 35% of the energy is used for the production of electricity. The rest, in the form of steam and warm water, is essentially wasted.

          Which is entirely misleading as a thermal process that produces power can only operate if it disposes of heat to a cold sink. Such a disposal of heat is called “waste”, but without the “waste”, you get no power at all.

          Of course his 35% is also quite an old figure (even for 2006) as plants have been upgrading with continued permits to operate to more efficient turbines and, where it’s economically justified, the whole steam cycle to be hotter and therefore inherently more efficient. The efficiency is not frozen; it is liable to change; to improve as newer technologies are applied.

          Newer reactor designs operate at higher temperature from the start, producing ultra-super-critical steam which, in CHP applications, has the potential to operate at over 60% thermal efficiency; because the users of the “waste heat” become part of the cold sink. i.e. a technical redesignation of “waste”.

          Similar technologies can be employed in modern gas and coal-fired plant, which inherently have similar operating efficiencies.

          None of the above diminishes the right of Bengtsson to associate and to communicate himself with whoever he pleases. He is not without talent and may well be educable; presenting an extreme risk to the believers. It was therefore necessary to make such a threat harmless by whatever it takes. With entrenched group-think, it’s not even necessary to coordinate counter-measures; the group’s inate response is to ostracize those of another mind.

          40

        • #
      • #
        motvikten

        Read the article I linked to!

        Bengtsson and the energy committee of the Royal Swedish Academy of Science are working hard to stop wind power and promote nuclear power.

        No climate change due to CO2, so no need for renewable, but use nuclear as it is low carbon. I call this intellectual meltdown.

        Bengtsson is the man responsible for the document used to motivate the Swedish aggressive global view on climate change.

        Several times I have seen people asking him to put forward a new document, in the name of the Academy of Science. He has answered by silence.

        I suppose the pressure he writes about now is from his colleagues in the Swedish Royal Academy of Science.

        You can not have a view on Bengtsson if you not have knowledge of the “Swedish nuclear trauma”.

        20

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    Forgive me for going a little far afield about this. But the same thing is happening throughout at least Western Society these days. It has the tragic ending that the thought police can dictate what’s correct to think. And they’re in our schools now doing exactly that. And in the United States Armed Serviced doing exactly that.

    Whether it’s Lennart Bengtsson who doesn’t agree with climate change orthodoxy or Cliven Bundy, a cattle rancher or Donald Sterling, owner of a basketball team, both bigots, the expression of their opinion evokes a response to punish them in one way or another. What became of freedom of speech?

    In the case of Bengtsson it costs him a position and a loss of prestiege. In Bundy’s case and that of Sterling the cause is different, sort of anyway, but still an opinion not thought to be correct in the year 2014. It’s not clear what it cost Bundy except being ignored as he should be after what he said. But in Sterling’s case it may end up costing him money and for sure he loses his team and its place in the NBA. Is the damage to freedom of speech worth it?

    Have we reached the point where this is acceptable? It seems we have. Yet all three retain their opinions, one, concerning climate change and the other two remain just as bigoted as they have always been — and don’t try to convince me that Sterling’s pleas that he’s learned his lesson mean anything because they don’t unless they’re followed by a lot of years of actually changed behavior. And in Sterling’s case, it’s clear that his views were widely known long ago. Why take action know?

    The correct action concerning Bengtsson is to present counter arguments. The correct action concerning the other two is to simply ignore what they say, don’t encourage them but don’t make anything of it either. Let it die. There will always be dissenters from the popular — or shall I call it the correct — point of view. Race, ethnicity, climate change… … what makes one different from the other? I’d say nothing. And simply silencing opinions you don’t agree with only strengthens that opinion. Witness how Christianity grew and thrived under Roman persecution.

    The first question that gets asked in the mind of anyone seeing someone’s opinion suppressed or punished is, “What are they afraid of? Could it be that the opinion they’re trying to suppress is right?”

    61

    • #
      Greg Cavanagh

      I don’t know if it’s a strategy (which assumes an understanding of what they are doing), or if it’s blind rage.

      My radio alarm triggers just as the news starts. There is a conference on the coast regarding immunisation. It made the news that the pro-immunisation speakers wanted the anti-immunisation speakers to not be allowed to speak at the conference. They said it was basically advocating harmful disease for your children.

      They are purposefully polarising the discussions. Not just advocating for one particular view, but forcing a divide. “Are you with us, or are you against us?”

      How we get back to rational discussions I don’t know.

      60

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        How we get back to rational discussions I don’t know.

        Me neither. And you touch on a subject of great concern to me because some of those immunizations have caused me to turn white and start to go into shock when I get them. It’s been that way since I was a small child. They’re always administered for the most part all in one big dose and so I’ve no way to know which one(s) to blame. So I haven’t had any of them since the last time the Army could do it to me against my will. It was risky enough then and no doubt even worse now. So I keep having to explain to doctors and now even the pharmacy, why I won’t take those shots. If those who can take them do then I figure my chances of avoiding trouble are really good. But the movement toward distrust of all vaccines bothers me because a vulnerable society around me could endanger me.

        And I readily admit that I’m a unique case and those vaccines are routinely given to hundreds of thousands every year without more than a temporarily elevated temperature in a few cases. I am not an argument against the vaccines, just against giving them to me. So we need to allow for those cases without going overboard.

        Needless to say, I would not try to silence any point of view but I’d surely make the strongest argument I could to be vaccinated against the worst killers, those diseases we’ve virtually wiped out in the developed world. On the other hand, the vaccinations being pushed by the manufacturers of the vaccine right now (shingles and human papillomavirus (HPV) are cases in point) I’m really skeptical about. The need to sell outweighs good judgment a lot of the time.

        And both sides fail here. One side fails by wanting to force the other side to do something an expert thinks is advisable. The other side fails by being unwilling or unable to evaluate risk, to evaluate evidence adequately. And neither wants to give an inch. Neither side will admit there’s the slightest justification for the other sides position. Such is the world ruled by experts — or fools.

        51

        • #
          Retired now

          When working as a medical researcher I would ask for research papers which would prove both efficacy and safety of vaccinations. Even avid proponents could never give them to me. I was told to google for the papers – which I could never find, despite being told there were “thousands of them”. What would always puzzle and disappoint me was the vindictive nastiness that even asking for the papers would provoke – making it seem that the AGW crowd were school yard bullies compared to the Nazis of the immunisation/medical research crowd.

          72

          • #

            So you were a medical researcher who did not know how to look up journal publications yourself? You must also have been an old medical researcher if you are both retired and were told to google for them.

            If there were indeed no publications of this sort you would have found none doing appropriate searches. Searches using the tools available in university libraries are powerful enough to be able to conclude that a negative is true by an absence of positive results. Indeed such a finding is publishable. Off you go. On the other hand, I just did a search and yes, found thousands listed and a sampling of these shows them to be positive about the efficacy of vaccines. I suspect that you reject them all for one reason or another.

            Furthermore googling this, “papers that show the efficacy of vaccinations”, produces this http://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.g1458 as the first hit.

            07

            • #
              Roy Hogue

              Gee Aye,

              Retired now gave so little information that I can’t tell anything about the scope or intent of his work, yet you can criticize him and present a research paper that may have no bearing on the work he was actually doing.

              I’ll not be too harsh and simply say I would never make the kind of statement you did. :-(

              50

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            Retired now,

            Such is the way of anyone who feels threatened by being asked for the evidence. I have no idea how to change it. I’ve even sometimes felt threatened on the job but thankfully I’ve resisted the urge to act on it. But I had many a long discussion of the pros and cons of design and implementation with the project management.

            30

            • #

              I assumed that his/her comment was a joke or a poorly composed troll. I’m surprised that my response, being so off topic, got through moderation.

              Seriously Roy, the lines “I was a medical researcher” and “I would ask for research papers” are completely at odds and show that Retired Now was just making stuff up (ie he/she was never a medical researcher). Researchers look stuff up themselves and can quickly and easily determine the evidence without needing to ask someone else.

              I should avoid crossing the bridges that trolls sit under.

              14

              • #
                Mark D.

                I should avoid crossing the bridges that trolls sit under.

                There is a challenge for all of us and that is first to identify the troll. Then after that I suppose, you can worry about the structure above them.

                20

        • #
          Greg Cavanagh

          I’ve never been immunised against anything (currently 47), and never intend to be be. And after consideration, I would not immunise my children. (They can do whatever they want when they are old enough to decide for themselves). But I do get upset when others declare that my children are not permitted to go to school because they aren’t immunised. It seems as though they aren’t confident in the immunisation process, and that their children are still at risk even though they are immunised.

          I simply want equal respect that I’ve made a conscious decision not to. As they have made a conscious decision to do so. I don’t want to be vilified because of it.

          Same with anything where we as people have a choice to do, or not do.

          30

          • #
            James Bradley

            It doesn’t follow logic, if your children are not immunized they pose no threat to children who are immunized.

            However in this PC world if your conscious decision not to protect your children results in their death or infirmary then you may be held responsible by the state for their lack of reasonably foreseen welfare.

            Just saying.

            20

        • #
          J.Knowles

          Sorry Roy, -accidental thumb down. Big fingers, small iPhone.
          I agree that there is strong case for vaccination for lethal diseases but one of my children had an adverse reaction to his 2nd triple antigen and it prompted a thorough investigation into the often less than scientific world of medicine.
          Two nephews also suffered temporary adverse reactions (or hyper sensitivity reactions) which closely followed the same pattern of development as many cot-deaths.
          The problem here is that people’s egos get paraded on pedastels as soon as the words “vaccination” or “global warming” are uttered. Bengtsson needs to state his case with repeated references to observational data. He’s old enough to hold his own opinion and ” tell the world where to get off”.

          00

          • #
            Roy Hogue

            J.Knowles,

            The problem in the fight to vaccinate or not to vaccinate is certainly the same as the climate change problem, egos get involved too easily and listening to the arguments of others becomes an instant casualty. It’s usually all downhill from there.

            No problem on the red thumb.

            I get perturbed when evidence that’s right in front of someone is ignored or not even seen in order to push what they think is the correct policy. It makes me immediately suspicious of dishonesty.

            I suspect I learned to pay attention to evidence and sometimes quite subtle evidence through having to learn to debug software. It taught me first and foremost, humility, I’m not excused from making mistakes by some stroke of nature’s benevolence. And then came perseverance and how to observe in order to get a clue as to what my mistake was.

            Would that the climate change crowd could do the same.

            00

    • #

      Nice slime of Clive Bundy there, Roy. Did you bother to see the whole speech he gave? Karl Denninger ran it over at The Market Ticker.

      00

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Mike,

        I saw quite a bit of Bundy’s little speech. I didn’t like it. But I have no way to stop him from speaking his mind on any subject he wants to vent his spleen about. And being uncertain of exactly what you mean by,

        Nice slime of Clive Bundy there, Roy. Did you bother to see the whole speech he gave?

        That’s all I’ll say. No criticism intended. :-)

        20

  • #
    diogenese2

    The question that is not being asked is – Why is Bengtsson so important that his liaison with GWPF must be terminated even at the public cost of such obvious suppression? It is because he alone has enough authority to break the 97% mantra and sow enough doubt about the “evidence” to provide POLITICAL bodies with the route to distance themselves from a commitment to emissions reduction and reverse their existing disastrous policies. WUWT has posted an interview with Bengtsson in 1990! wherein he nailed the political and ideological process that was taking place. He could, of course, not affect what happened in 1992 (Rio Earth Summit) when the whole world, with various agendas, accepted, even if only from the precautionary principle, the thesis of “climate catastrophe”
    from CO2 emissions. Even so the “developing” nations inserted the caveat that their economic development would not be compromised by any “global” requirements. This still holds and this incompatibility with the policy of “mitigation” is about to reach the point of trial in the Paris 2015 conference. The current negotiations indicate the a global agreement is only possible around “adaption” to change and the utter futility of “mitigation” “emission targets” and “renewable energy” policies will be totally exposed.
    But to abandon “mitigation” is to admit 30 years of error.

    ” Have you ever bought a fake picture – the more you have paid for it – the less inclined you are to doubt it”
    George Smiley – “Tinker Taylor Soldier Spy” John Le Carre

    The “west” has bought a fake and is waking up to this – though you appeared to have cotton on first. Incidently I note that from the “budget” post that your politicals can only command 25% of your GP – you luck bastards don’t give them another cent!

    The (canny – not many I admit) politicians are starting to look for an exit strategy from a humiliating impasse in Paris. The consequences for the “warming” fraternity are dire – hence the current hysteria and reckless activity- such as bullying a 79 year old ,semi-retired professor.
    Yesterday I heard a story from 80′s.
    ” A roumanian had got out of the country and had become a New York taximan. Eventually he got his mother out. Picking her up from Kennedy he stopped at a supermarket for some supplies. His mother followed him in. Shortly he noticed her missing and found her in a nearby aisle sitting on the floor weeping her heart out.
    ‘ Mama what is the matter’
    ‘ They lied to us. They said you were poor. You are only a driver but you have all this – we queue 5 hours for a loaf of bread. They lied to us.’
    That is what the politicians fear and why the warmists must suppress dissent by any means. Thanks largely to Skeptics and the internet – sites like this – truth cannot be suppressed and lies exposed even if you command the MSM, academia and broadcasting.

    200

  • #
    MadJak

    Am I the only one who can’t help but compare these situations to that of nazi gem any with the Jews?

    I’m not meaning to inflame anyone, but the parallels are definitely there – a highly motivated and someone fanatical group working tirelessly to intimidate and run down an “out” group.

    It’s almost like AR5/inconvenient truth has had a similar effect to mien kamph.

    110

  • #
    Sean

    The academic world has long since been taken over by socialist totalitarians, of the same ilk as our old enemies the Communists and the Fascists. Frankly it is well past the time to start being much more discriminating in which institutions and programs receive public money, and which should be told to go raise their own money. If schools wish to be indoctrination centers they can do it on their own dime.

    70

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      But if the indoctrinators have themselves been indoctrinated, how would they know? They won’t necessarily realise that they are indoctrinating the next generation.

      That is why this phenomena is sometimes referred to as “Second-Generation” conditioning.

      40

      • #
        Steve

        Perhaps, although I would argue the best defence against group think is drilling our kids to pursue the truth, but most importantly to press people who make a comment to then supply the facts to back it up.

        30

  • #
    Eddie

    Heresy on BBC Radio 4 just now, or just a few home truths about, the huge problems of storage and reliance on renewables, presented with endearing optimism nevertheless.
    I don’t know if you can access it from Oz. Downloadable here.
    http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/costearth/costearth_20140513-1600a.mp3

    40

    • #
      Annie

      I must have just missed it…I tuned in just after 0700 local time. I tend to switch off when Tom Heap is on, as he is from time to time. I haven’t managed to use iPlayer here, only live broadcasts. I’ll try your link Eddie; thanks.

      20

    • #
      Annie

      Thank you again Eddie…I’ve just managed to listen to it…Tom Heap was a bit less irritating than usual!

      00

  • #
    Bruce

    Profile in courage!

    This guy clearly does not have much spine.

    He is now regarded as an apostate by the academic left, and quizzically by skeptics.

    His reputation is gone.

    (Bengtsson is Swedish family name originating in a patronymic, meaning “son of Bengt”, Bengt meaning “Blessed”. Hmm!)

    But that Tail Gunner Joe is alive and well lurking in the climate crowd, occasions no surprise.

    20

  • #
    Peter Cunningham

    An Extraordinary development!
    Just three weeks after this globally respected climate scientist switched camps from the IPCC / alarmist agenda to the ‘dark side’ which challenges that dogma – he is forced to resign.
    Such is the pressure from alarmist academics that they have forced this man to subservience.
    Those people are TRULY evil. Their agenda is other than benefit for this planet as their prejudiced and myopic actions prove.
    They MUST be strenuously resisted or else they control our destiny.
    All the more reason to spread this message and challenge anything that comes from the IPCC, Alarmist and political mouths.
    Spread widely this example of ruthless behaviour to alert people – hopefully into action to play their small part to stem this orchestrated buggery.
    PC.

    30

  • #
    Peter Cunningham

    I also agree with BRUCE: “This guy clearly does not have much spine.” PC

    10

    • #
      Ross

      Peter and Bruce

      I disagree with you both. For a start , at his age who else would put up with all this rubbish that he has had( maybe there are health issues involved).
      But in some ways we could say, by coming out publicly this, he has achieved more than if he stayed with the GWPF. This assumes the matter gets the media attention it deserves, which obviously is not guaranteed.

      40

  • #

    > Am I the only one who can’t help but compare these situations to that of nazi gem any with the Jews?

    Godwin! You lose. You’re also profoundly unimaginative.I’m deeply unimpressed by the quality of rhetoric here. So far, NTZ blows you all away with “Boko Haram Science…Thought-Tyranny, Vicious Hounding Shame, Blacken Climate Science Community”.

    Come on Ozzies, you can do better than this!

    119

    • #
      handjive

      I call Godwin first, therefore you lose?

      You can do better than that.
      Actually, no you can’t.

      71

      • #
        the Griss

        Connelly is already right at the bottom rung of humanity.

        His whole life is a self-perpetuating insult to himself, and he thrives on it.

        Any insult we give him, just strengthens his walls of slime.

        Leave him to wallow in his own sewer.

        111

    • #
      handjive

      Quote Connelly:
      [My heart bleeds for the poor dahling; he's such a delicate flower. Perhaps someone who wilts so quickly shouldn't have tried to push his way into the sunlight -W] in response to a dissenting comment #24

      And you have the hide to come here and say, “You’re also profoundly unimaginative.I’m deeply unimpressed by the quality of rhetoric here.”

      You beclown yourself even further.

      91

    • #
      handjive

      And, Mr Connelly, whilst you are here enlightening us on how to think …

      Would you have an opinion on this type of behaviour:

      With officials and doctors paid a bonus for every operation, poor and little-educated men and women in rural areas are routinely rounded up and sterilised without having a chance to object.
      Activists say some are told they are going to health camps for operations that will improve their general wellbeing and only discover the truth after going under the knife.

      Many have died as a result of botched operations, while others have been left bleeding and in agony.
      A number of pregnant women selected for sterilisation suffered miscarriages and lost their babies.

      Yet a working paper published by the UK’s Department for International Development in 2010 cited the need to fight climate change as one of the key reasons for pressing ahead with such programmes.
      The document argued that reducing population numbers would cut greenhouse gases …”
      . . .
      You ‘know’ you are an ‘intelligent’ man.
      Have you ever read about this type of behaviour before?

      Do you agree with it?

      Don’t be a ‘delicate flower’, dahling.
      Do tell …

      71

      • #
        the Griss

        Poor Bill, he has had to live with himself for all of his life.

        That must be truly a sickening feeling for him, but he has learnt to thrive on that sickness.

        41

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Godwin! You lose.

      Oh, so it is all about winning, is it? And all that stuff about facts, and evidence, is immaterial? Godwin, trumps all!

      How purile.

      101

    • #
      Glen Michel

      Ah willy drops in-like a turd into a toilet,but must be considering what it’s like to be on a losing side as will eventuate,given atad more time.A truly dismal specimen.

      51

    • #
      Teddi

      Connelly – your are such scum ! All the years you’ve applied these same tactics on Wiki to prevent the truth from being posted and your kind is still at it…

      Low life cult breeding parasites living off the host movement. I’m the guy who threatened you with legal action and I still regret not taking you down and exposing you for what you are !

      50

    • #
      PhilJourdan

      Truth! You lose. But then since that is a foreign concept to you, you will not understand.

      50

    • #
      Sean McHugh

      Godwin doesn’t get to make the laws and actually he didn’t even try.

      20

    • #
      Sean McHugh

      How about this one from George Santayana:

      Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

      That better?

      20

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Am I the only one who can’t help but compare these situations to that of nazi gem any (sic) with the Jews?

      No. But I think it’s quite a lot less dangerous to life than the Nazis were, at least so far. So I don’t make a big deal out of it.

      00

      • #
        PhilJourdan

        at least so far.

        First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out–
        Because I was not a Socialist.

        Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out–
        Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

        Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out–
        Because I was not a Jew.

        Then they came for me–and there was no one left to speak for me.

        Martin Niemöller

        10

        • #
          Roy Hogue

          Phil,

          I guess I should say, touché.

          But in my defense, I have to decide where the threshold is above which I must speak or act and below which I don’t. Otherwise I have no life, only one crisis after another.

          20

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      And there goes freedom of speech, right down the drain.

      William Connolley,

      Since you are quoting me it would be nice if you at least got the context right. It was much more general than just the particular scientist who is the subject of this thread. And frankly, I think the general threat is much more pernicious than the specific one to Bengtsson with all its implications. Your whole comment # 30 is a non sequitur to the quote.

      You’ve made a fool of yourself. You should fade away before you get even further behind.

      10

      • #
        Roy Hogue

        Nuts, it’s his # 31 I intended to reply to. Something gets out of whack every now and then and it may be me.

        10

  • #

    > And there goes freedom of speech, right down the drain.

    Seems to me that LB is having no trouble publishing anything he wants. Practically every “skeptic” blog on the planet is salivating over his resignation letter. You people are jokes: you don’t even know what words mean any more.

    125

  • #
    leon0112

    Jo – I suggest a Lysenko Prize for Climate Science award sponsored by your website (perhaps in conjunction with others). Nominees could include Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Al Gore, William Connolley, …..

    If Mann received the Lysenko Prize, we would wonder if he would add it to his resume or sue you.

    70

  • #
    Rereke Whakaaro

    If Mann received the Lysenko Prize, we would wonder if he would add it to his resume or sue you.

    He might well do both. They are not mutually exclusive, once you have stepped through the looking glass.

    40

  • #
    TdeF

    I must admit to being puzzled by the resignation, now that I understand this is a board formed in 2009 by Lord Lawson. You could call it a board of sceptics as that is a fair name for any professional scientist.

    “The Global Warming Policy Foundation was launched by Lord Lawson and Dr Benny Peiser on 23 November 2009 in the House of Lords – in the run-up to the Copenhagen Climate Summit.”

    Really you can only conclude that Lennart Bengtsson was harassed unbearably by daring to lend his name and authority to this sceptical board, but he does not say by whom. However he does not need to say. The harassment and his resignation shows clearly that global warming is a political issue, not a scientific one.

    For Bengtsson to even be on this board would mean one of the special breed of ‘climate’ scientists with an understanding of physics, chemistry, mathematics, computer modelling not given to ordinary men had betrayed his own kind and sullied the name of ‘climate’ scientist. Worse, he could have been a paleoclimatologist like our own mathematically challenged science fiction writer Tim Flannery. Or even a climate phrenologist, the rarest and most precious of the species.

    50

  • #
    Greg House

    Unfortunately, Mr. Bengtsson fully supports the physically impossible process of self-heating by own heat, also known as the “greenhouse effect” and presented by the IPCC in their reports (heating the Earth surface by back radiation).

    This is how Mr. Bengtsson explains the “greenhouse effect”: “These properties create the large surface heating that characterizes the greenhouse effect, by means of which the atmosphere allows a considerable fraction of solar radiation to penetrate to the Earth’s surface and then traps (more precisely, intercepts and reradiates) much of the upward terrestrial infrared radiation from the surface and lower atmosphere. The downward reradiation further enhances surface warming and is the prime process causing the greenhouse effect. This is not a speculative theory but a well-understood and validated phenomenon of nature”. The only difference to the IPCC version is the usage of the term “downward reradiation” instead of “back radiation”. (http://www.casinapioiv.va/content/dam/accademia/pdf/sv96pas.pdf, p.91)

    40

  • #
    TdeF

    It is puzzling that poor CO2 gets all the blame. The two products of hydrocarbon combustion are H20 and CO2 and H20 is by far the greater greenhouse gas. Where invisible CO2 can only trap infra red once visible and UV light it hits our land and oceans and radiates back out, H2O is very visible and very reflective as clouds. Just look outside on most days.

    However no one really tries to blame H2O as the villain, as there is so much of it already and that would be laughable. After all H2O is clearly in equilibrium with the vast oceans and the sun’s heat form clouds and rain and the cycle is so clear for everyone. CO2 does exactly the same thing but being invisible in gaseous form, you can blame it for everything. H2O gets away with forming clouds, clouds which block out the sun, clouds which reflect the sunlight, but it is our CO2 which is pollution. The curse of the planet, the most feared industrial waste product should be DiHydrogen Oxide. We have the wrong villain. A climate scientist, prince of all elite scientists, should know that.

    81

    • #
      Greg House

      The two products of hydrocarbon combustion are H20 and CO2 and H20 is by far the greater greenhouse gas.

      TdeF, there are no “greenhouse gases”, because what they are supposed to do (“greenhouse effect”) is physically impossible. Nothing can be heated by what it has radiated away, including the surface of the earth.

      Unfortunately, this impossible process is exactly what the IPCC present as “greenhouse effect”, where the so called “greenhouse gases” serve as a passive reflector. Even a situation with a perfect 100% reflector would not be different from the one where two equally warm bodies faced each other, and everyone knows that they would not heat each other. No back radiation heating is possible.

      42

      • #
        TdeF

        Greg,
        I was not arguing the idea of Greenhouse gases. Frankly, on a global scale a greenhouse with no walls and no roof and turbulence and over a huge body of water is not a greenhouse and the model is really suspect and unproven, like most global models. However my point was only that if CO2 is a problem simply and wholly because of this alleged greenhouse effect, H2O is even worse. Clouds reflect the light straight back into space, and it does not reach the planet surface in the first place. Lord Monckton actually published a paper demonstrating that the low cloud cover from the 1950′s may have been wholly responsible for the observed warming, an explanation which fits the facts better than the utterly busted CO2 greenhouse theory.

        By the way, I have a similar problem with the ozone hole. If it was really due to ‘pollution’ of flouro hydrocarbons, the hole should be in the Northern Hemisphere where 90% of all people live, but they do not have a problem. It is all South of Tasmania, where no one lives. Of course it is not the fact that the Southern Hemisphere is so different and so much colder than the Northern Hemisphere, but in the new world where everyone is the same and all climates are unchanging and man is the only factor in climate, no one dares mention that the South is utterly different to the North, poles apart as it were. So the ‘ship of fools’ sailed off to prove that the South Pole was identical to the North Pole. It wasn’t and millions of dollars later, our fools came home having disrupted the research programs of dedicated real scientists who could have told them what they wanted to know.

        31

    • #
      garhighway

      While water vapor is a greenhouse gas, it is one with very short latency in the atmosphere: thus you see humidity go up and down on very short time scales. CO2, on the other hand, hangs around much longer, so it’s effects are longer-lasting.

      the sequence is simple, unless you are in possession of knowlege that upends atmospheric physics as we know it (and in which case you should write your paper and pick up your Nobel):

      1> we burn vast quantities of fossil fuels, thus releasing vast quantities of CO2.
      2> that increases the CO2 fraction of our atmosphere.
      3> the added CO2 absorbs and re-radiates incrementally more LWR
      4> that marginally warms the atmosphere
      5> the warmer atmosphere holds incrementally more water vapor
      6> which also acts as a greenhouse gas and contributes to further warming.

      Other factors apply, up and down, as well: aerosols, clouds and the sun, chief among them. and making everything trickier, the increased forcing from GHG is not tightly couple to surface temperatures. Those are subject to other factors as well that make them a very noisy signal. But that’s it in a nutshell.

      Which part of that is wrong?

      02

      • #
        TdeF

        If that is the simple chain of logic, I would be pleased to see your proof of #2. If #2 is not true, everything collapses. Agreed?

        Please do not use arguments like it is obvious, or someone said, or anyone can see, or everyone agrees or the IPCC is certain.

        98% of all CO2 is actually dissolved in the vast deep oceans,an amazing 50x as much as in the atmosphere and it is in equilibrium with the atmosphere. Amazing though it might seem, a core concept of physical chemistry is that gas concentrations say between air and water are in equilibrium (Henry’s law) and while you think you can alter that balance, you cannot. This is schoolboy chemistry.

        Even better, you can actually prove #2 is wrong by radio carbon dating the atmospheric CO2. To see how old it is. If the 50% increase in atmospheric CO2 is from fossil fuel alone and fossil fuel has no C14, why don’t C14 levels decrease to 2/3? No, #2 is utterly wrong. It is the elephant in the room. Everything after that becomes irrelevant.

        I was just pointing out the very selective science which blames one thing and one thing only for recent warming, CO2, not H2O or anything else. If that was true, temperatures should have kept rising. No, it is busted. Thanks to #2, it never made scientific sense anyway. You will find everyone skips #2.

        20

        • #
          TdeF

          The strong equilibrium exchanges between the air and the world’s oceans is what enables the fish to breathe. Yes, they breathe O2 and output CO2 and fart CH4 but fish cannot make O2. Only plants including phytoplankton can do that. How does the oxygen get there and back?

          We humans see the atmosphere as huge, as tall as Mt. Everest, 10km thick for the troposphere. Early man thought the Gods lived in the clouds or on top of mountains. However compared with the 13,000km diameter of the earth, the oceans are a thin film, as thick as a sheet of paper and the planet is very smooth. 66% of this atmospheric film is over the oceans and both are being stirred by storms and winds. So the exchange of gases is continuous and animal life started in the oceans.

          My point is that CO2 levels are set by this equilibrium exchange process calculated by Henry’s Law, not by anything we can do. We can burn all the fossil fuel we like and create a temporary imbalance, but it is easy to demonstrate that this self corrects with a half life of about 12 years, so it has all disappeared into the oceans in 30 years. As explained, this theory is easily confirmed and the effect was first noticed in the 1950s, the Suess effect. It is the thing warmists never want to discuss. It is not Nobel stuff, just schoolboy physics and chemistry.

          The irony in all this is that we will run out of fossil fuels soon enough.

          20

        • #

          TdeF Would you help me understand something? Or anyone who cares to jump in.
          The AGW group would say, I think, that CO2 at 280ppm in the atmosphere is ok. They also say that 400ppm is a disaster waiting to happen. Now 280/1mill = .028% or .00028. 400ppm = .04% or .0004.
          The difference between them is 0.00012.
          What I’d like to know is this. Is CO2 evenly distributed throughout the atmosphere?
          Does it collect at some height above the surface?
          What volume does it take up? How many molecules of CO2 are there per cubic liter of atmosphere?
          Is there a density to CO2 within any space that makes a difference in how it functions?
          The surface temperature of Venus is ~800F. But I’ve also read this has nothing to do with the chemical composition of the atmosphere that is 95.7% CO2.
          And is it that AGW Alarmists really contend that 12 ten thousandths is enough to go from ok to catastrophe? Even if we doubled the 400 to 800ppm it would still be only 52 ten thousandths difference. The idea of this seems entirely magical so I must be missing something of great importance. Or gotten something terrible wrong. What?

          10

          • #
            TdeF

            Jack, I cannot answer all these questions, but your fundamental idea is that CO2 is a very small percentage and a 50% increase in half of nothing hardly matters. In fact there is a near critical shortage of CO2 and CO2 is the essential ingredient from which all plants and thus all life on earth is made.
            Without CO2, life stops.

            At 0.02%, life stops anyway as plants do not grow. As for altitude, distribution, volume, you can treat volume as the % roughly. It depends on the relative weights of the big elements N2 (28), O2(32) and CO2 (44) but they are close enough not to matter when the percentages are 78%, 21% and 0.04% (Argon 1%). In fact you would expect CO2 to be higher at lower altitude because it is heavier, but it tends to be evenly mixed.

            As for catastrophe for a 50% increase, that has been disproven. There was a time when CO2 was much higher and life was booming until the three great extinctions from asteroid collisions. If the oceans released all their CO2 today, which would not take much heating, the total CO2 would be 2%. (50×0.04) At the times when the world was hotter and had more CO2, we had these enormous jungles, which is why we have so much oil now, all rotted plant matter. It also points to the fact that like heating lemonade, the CO2 increase will have come naturally from a slight heating of the oceans, not the other way around. The fact that 98% of the CO2 is in the oceans explains the big increase in aerial CO2.

            Don’t worry about Venus.

            10

            • #

              Well, thanks for that. I’ve read that plants are at a starvation level for CO2 and the increase has helped with the greening of the planet…more biomass…more of a sink for CO2. Last year Bengtsson was on a panel in Sweden with Pachuri in which Pachuri responded to a point from Bengtsson by saying he wanted to see more forests planted. I kept waiting for someone to throw out the fact that sq miles of forests is up planet wide but no one did.
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOvNtCXktSY
              There is a Czech physicist who did a bit of math to show that the temperature on Venus is the result of the lapse rate and the fact that the atmosphere of Venus is 93 times heavier than that of Earth.
              CO2 is heavier than air so why isn’t it ground hugging? Does anyone have an answer for that?

              10

              • #
                the Griss

                Yes Jack , plants have been at close to starvation levels for a long long time. All that buried coal !!

                To cope they pack their stomata in really tight, which makes them highly inefficient with water usage.

                200ppm, most plants shut down.. end of civilisation !!

                Green house growers use around 1000ppm. Stomata are way less densely packed, and plants grow way more efficiently, given extra other nutrients of course.

                CO2 is still a gas, and there are many forces that act on gas combinations.

                Diffussion is a main one, ie the tendency of gasses to equalise their concentrations throughout.

                (did you know that even carbon in steel diffuses through the steel and eventually equalises through welded joints etc.)

                There is also convection. wind etc, which helps keep the atmosphere stirred up.

                As an aside…, when you get what is called an adiabatic inversion, with absolutely still conditions, no convection etc, CO2 does stay near the ground. Concentrations can reach something like 3000ppm below an inversion. Cows go to sleep !

                10

          • #
            ROM

            Jack Sprat @ 36.2.1.2

            Jack it’s a pity that we can’t easily post images on jo’s site here but for the CO2 global distribution I think you are looking for you are looking for I suggest that you have a look at this NASA Earth Data site.
            The images are clickable in the CO2 satellite page [ URL below ] and show the quite large differences in CO2 distribution around the planet and not always where you would expect to see both high and lower concentrations of CO2.

            Satellite observations of carbon dioxide: Why are they important; and what CO2 data from different NASA missions tell us

            01

            • #

              When I hear people talk about CO2 dissolving in sea water and causing acidification I never hear them mention the increase in CO2 uptake by creatures that use it for their exoskeleton.
              Could they take it up faster, where they simply double in number and not be overwhelmed by the amount?

              10

              • #
                TdeF

                No Jack, that acidification story is a lie, a fact twisted to deceive. The seas are alkali with a pH around 8.4 and anything above 7 is alkali. In fact by adding CO2, carbonic acid, the seas become less alkali, less reactive but this is presented to the world deceitfully as dangerous ‘acidification’ threatening coral reefs, implying that the seas are becoming acid, like acid rain. That is a lie, like saving less money is the same as being in debt. It isn’t. If anything the seas become less reactive, more neutral! Also remember that 98% of the CO2 is already in the water. So if we put it all in, total ocean CO2 would only go up 2%.

                11

              • #

                So TdeF. Is it your assertion that a pH of 7 is the least reactive? The problem (actually one of many) with your statement is your are not saying what is it less reactive with respect to. So what is it? What biologically relevant reactions become “less reactive” in the presence of a higher concentration of hydrogen ions?

                Here is another thing to consider just using your vernacular (ie I am not endorsing the term “reactive”). What if enzymatic reactions work better when conditions are “more reactive”? If you attend a second year biochem prac you’ll soon find out.

                btw the average surface pH is about 8.1. What is your 8.4?

                11

              • #
                TdeF

                Gee Aye,
                the concept of pH is measuring the concentration of Hydrogen H+ ions. OH- and H+ form water. If there are more OH- ions than H+ it is alkali. If the is a preponderance of H+ over OH- it is acid. In high enough concentrations, both will cause real damage and dissolve human skin. They are equally dangerous and highly reactive. For Ph, we measure only H+ concentrations, so the 10*logarithm of the concentration of H+ in pH. This is part of every basic chemistry course.

                Fresh water has a level of 10-7 of H+, so a pH of 7. Less than 7 is acid so 6,5,4,3,2,1.. is more and more acid. Your stomach acid is as low as 5 and as acid as 1. 1 is quite dangerous and will dissolve almost everything you eat. That is why reflux is dangerous. The mouth and gut are slightly alkali, dissolving differently. So we live with acids and alkali and manufacture our own HCl, Hydrochloric acid. So the Greenpeace attempt to ban Chlorine would not only ban salt, but even our own digestive systems.

                So what you have to remember <
                7=neutral water, perfectly safe to drink, the least reactive.
                7 is alkali, the higher the more alkali and the more dangerous.

                That is why 8.3 is alkali, but mildly. Even if all the CO2 in the atmosphere was suddenly put in the oceans, the water will never become acid. That is the lie. You are told about ‘acidification’ as if the oceans are become acid. You are adding a very mild carbonic acid but first they have to become neutral, which will never happen. So it is lie.

                11

              • #

                Please don’t tell me what I have to remember – what I learned in classes and through research is still in my brain – and I don’t want to get into a debate about semantics.

                Your confusion though seems to be about the reversibility of chemical reactions. And do you know how enzymes work and how they push reactions in particular directions but that they are pH dependent? Change the pH and you change the chemistry?

                From what you are writing it seems that you think that as soon as pH tips above 7 that no “acidic” reactions occur. Do you think that at pH 7.000 (for example in water) there is some sort of harmonious situation where nothing happens? Drop salt into the pH 7.00000 water and see if it dissolves

                BTW, you failed to admit that the more “reactive” (you words) conditions might be favoured by marine biota. Did you not admit this since you seem to think that more neutral is better, but you know you have no justification for this?

                02

              • #
                TdeF

                Gee Aye.

                When you drop salt into water, no chemical reaction occurs. What you see is not a chemical process. It is a physical one, like say melting.

                My point, my entire point is that the world’s oceans are not acid and not becoming acidified. Not in any definition I know.

                20

              • #

                When you drop salt into water, no chemical reaction occurs.

                well that’s the ball game. Jack Spratt, good luck!

                14

              • #
                the Griss

                The sea also contains an enormous amount of plant life, which of course, uses CO2.

                And fish, and aquatic mammals, eat that plant life, in huge amounts.

                Poor Gee Aye, seems he had forgotten what he learnt in class. :-)

                40

              • #
                Gee Aye

                What have I forgotten and what has your comment got to do with my comment?

                02

          • #
            the Griss

            Jack,

            On Venus, the CO2 concentration is , as you say, around 98%

            BUT if you look at the atmospheric temperatures on Venus at equal atmospheric pressures as occur in Earth’s atmosphere, the temperature is ALMOST EXACTLY what it should be compared to its distance from the Sun.

            There is actually ZERO WARMING in the Venus atmosphere from all that extra CO2.

            That is because the atmospheric temperature is a function of the PRESSURE GRADIENT which is a function of GRAVITY and the specific energy of the gasses that make up that atmosphere. CO2 does not alter the specific energy of Earth’s atmosphere by anything microscopic amount

            The atmospheric pressure at the surface of VENUS is something like 90 times (iirc) that on Earth so of course it is much warmer.

            51

      • #
        Peter C

        CO2 hangs around much longer! How much longer? A question linked to #2.
        Also #4 is still in contention, despite being an axiom of climate science.

        10

      • #
        the Griss

        #4 is nonsense too. If something absorbs then re-emits, no heating happens.

        The atmosphere is controlled by the gravity gradient, and radiant energy is just one way that energy is transferred to maintain this control.

        11

        • #
          the Griss

          #6. atmospheric H2O is a coolant !!

          It is used as part of the surface cooling mechanism controlled by the gravity based temperature gradient.

          11

  • #
    Safetyguy66

    Listening to the radio on the way into work this morning (Radio National). Several scientist types were being interviewed to discuss the budget and the proposal for the soon to commence “Threatened Species Commissioner”.

    The interesting part was not one of these people mentioned climate change research. They all went on about their areas of interest, Leadbeaters Possum, mammalian extinctions, the Murray Darling Basin and a few others.

    I think one of the most positive outcomes of the Abbott approach to science and science funding has been that it has got scientists talking about problems that actually matter and problems that can be addressed, measured and maybe even fixed. Now there is no massive floating bucket of money for research into fantasies of the emotion any more, lo and behold scientists start thinking about the topics they were actually concerned about before they got distracted by carbon dioxide alarm-ism.

    50

  • #

    I say that Lennart Bengtsson appears to be both lacking courage and determination. He apparently doesn’t like being called names and threatened. Well neither do I.

    234

    • #
      Mattb

      Jennifer I fully expect my own post to receive the polar opposite in terms of thumbs up and thumbs down than your own, despite it echoing your sentiments :)

      120

      • #
        bullocky

        I quite agree, Mattb.
        -
        Perhaps folks were extrapolating from the trend line.

        20

      • #
        Bulldust

        MattB – on the odd occasion you say something sensible, look what happens? Hey I stuff up occasionally, but if I say something unpopular here, as long as it is substantiated, I don’t get the red except from the mindless trollizens.

        Good example is the Peak Oil silliness pushed here from time to time … given my background and education, I love trouncing Peak Oilies. They are guilty of the same thing as climate modellers. They use an overly simplistic concept and extrapolate it to the entire world economy. Such an approach is doomed to fail every single time. It’s like I see Malthus over and over again. The system is just not that simple.

        80

        • #
          Safetyguy66

          100% on the mark Bulldust

          Peak Oil, if you have a penchant for running off at the mouth based on 1970s scare campaigns, then that should be your topic of choice.

          Peak Oil? Peak stupidity more like it.

          30

          • #
            Truthseeker

            SG66,

            Einstein disagrees with your assertion about Peak Stupidity …

            Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former.

            Albert Einstein

            50

            • #
              the Griss

              I suspect that the CAGW mob are actually nowhere near their peak stupidity !

              I’m absolutely sure that they are capable of more and more and more stupidity,

              and I predict that we will continue to see ample proof of this. :-)

              10

              • #
                PhilJourdan

                I suspect that the CAGW mob are actually nowhere near their peak stupidity

                You are correct. The more they see this opportunity to control the world slip from their grasp, the more stupid they will become.

                00

        • #

          Have you read Julian Simon?

          00

      • #
        PhilJourdan

        The difference is the starting point. Jennifer is way ahead of you.

        10

    • #
      Annie

      I doubt he lacks courage and determination but I agree with you Jennifer that he apparently doesn’t like being called names and threatened…too right, why should he put up with that at his age or any age indeed? I’m appalled at his treatment.

      This answer is to Mattb also. I’m assuming that you both actually imply that he shouldn’t be called names and threatened…right? My ticks were on that qualified basis.

      80

      • #
        the Griss

        Annie.. have you ever been a high school teacher. ;-)

        But I agree completely, at his age he should be treated with far more respect than he has apparently received.

        Quite disgusting from those who appear to have hounded him.

        00

    • #
      the Griss

      Jennifer,

      The guy is nearly 80! I think saying “lack of courage” is a bit tough.

      I’m willing to bet he never expected the kind of bullocking and sliming he seems to have received.

      He probably been a quiet, respected scientist all his life and expected civilised discussions,

      He is obviously not prepared to put himself through the kind of muck a younger person would almost certainly fight back at.

      He has learnt a strong lesson about reality.

      The fact that once friends and peers would treat him that way really is a sad indictment on the whole putrid AGW agenda.

      100

    • #
      Manfred

      Age is not for the faint hearted! The gentleman scientist has every right to respect and dignity, indeed as we all do, only more so. Coping with his age and functioning effectively as a scientist is a prodigious feat in my view.

      The aptly self-named Stoat is nothing more than a short-tailed weasel that appears to enjoy ‘dashing and thrashing‘, laughing ‘Ha Ha’ publicly in a manner that will likely haunt him in years to come.

      30

    • #
      Sean McHugh

      Hi Jennifer,

      Though I basically agree with what you are saying, I don’t think his reaction is surprising. Suddenly his friends aren’t his friends. Suddenly his career and reputation are mud. Very few could quickly adjust to that. Bloggers here would have known what he was in for, but there is a good chance that he didn’t. It would be like culture shock only much worse.

      Cheers,

      Sean

      30

    • #

      I said the same thing on another post and several people jumped to Bengtsson’s defense. I even said, “I’m not condemning him as I don’t know the particulars.”
      He is 79? Who knows how his health is? I won’t make the decision for him but how much more satisfying it would have been had he gathered the evidence of the pressure, refused to resign, published the evidence and castigated the ‘alarmist’ community for embracing the Middle Ages.

      21

    • #

      Here is Bengtsson and Pachuri going at it sharing a stage with two other gents.
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOvNtCXktSY

      10

  • #
    ROM

    I see quite a lot of comments on here that suggest that Lennart Bengtsson hasn’t any spine in that he has succumbed to intolerable pressure from the dogma fixated fanatics of the catastrophic global warming faith and ideology [ That's you to a "T," William Connolley. ]

    Each of us has our strong points and strengths
    Each of us has our weaknesses and vulnerabilitie, often hidden but very deep vulnerabilities
    Each of us can take pressures of some types but are very susceptible to pressures of other types whether they be personal, cultural, societal or professional.
    What is quite acceptable professionally, personally, familial, societal AND cultural pressures to one may be quite intolerable to another from a different cultural, societal, personal and professional background.

    I think of the JoNova’s , the Anthony Watts, the Pierre Gosselins, Roger Pielke Sr, and Roger Pielke Jr himself a warmist, Richard Lindzen, arguably the most credentialled meteorolgy scientist in the world, Nils Axel Morner, Roy Spencer, Judith Curry and so many, many, in fact dozen’s and hundreds more scientists, commentors, skeptic and not so skeptic blog owners who have been subjected to the viperous, vicious, intolerant to the extreme and totally ignorant outpourings from the Tomás de Torquemada’s” of the climate Inquistion which has taken upon itself the role of suppressing and eliminating any destroying any of what they perceive as heresy and expelling and destroying any “heretics” that are even doubted in their support of the catastrophic global warming ideology and it’s unproven, non natural, climate model based dogma.

    Before condemning a person for not having any spine to take the pressure go look in a mirror and ask yourself just what are your own deep vulnerabilities and could you withstand pressure on those vulnerable points if others knew your vulnerabilities and turned those vulnerabilities back onto you.

    But for those of us who know history, when the viciousness and the utter intolerance of a viciously imposed, enforced ideology and dogma become too much for the populace to bear and allow to continue, the backlash against such ideologies and dogmas and the people who were the most aggressive in enforcing that dogma [ Thats you to a" T "again William Connelley ] are the ones who themselves have become the biggest victims of their own excesses and who when they are alive will suffer in ways that they never believed would ever be their fate.
    And if dead then they will be forever remembered with savage distaste for what they had become, just another of a whole gamut of grossly inhuman, utterly intolerant , vicious dogma fixated thugs, the Tomás de Torquemada’s of the Climate Inquistion

    160

    • #
      Mike Jowsey

      Roger Pielke, Jr. said…

      For experts in the climate issue, there is enormous social and peer pressure on what is acceptable to say and who it is acceptable to associate with. My recent experiences are quite similar to Bengtsson’s:

      The main problem here is not that people have strong views or call people names. It is that the elite in this community – including scientists, journalists, politicians — have endorsed the climate mccarthyism campaign, and are often its most vigorous participants.

      http://www.blogger.com/profile/04711007512915460627

      40

  • #
    ROM

    As a postscript and off topic;

    I have just had a very explosive phone call out of the blue from my still farming brother on a CO2 FACE experiment on which a talk is to be given at noon today at our local large Ag research centre ‘

    All of the media reports and news releases from the science establishments are concentrating on the very minor decreases in some nutrients in the crop with the increased CO2.
    Nothing as in “Nothing” has appeared in the media or in the science organisation’s news releases on the good yield increases from increasing CO2 and the benefits that will mean to global food production and the mitigation and even elimination of hunger for an ever growing global population in the future

    My brother is totally fed up to the back teeth [ as I now am ] and thats being polite considering his verbiage, with the utterly stupid, totally irrational, total negativity and the apparently quite deliberate attempts to instill fear over just about any outcome of science research, into the populace by large sections of the scientific establishment.

    He like me, is fast losing confidence and trust and worst of all, fast losing respect at any level for just about all of science.
    He along with numerous and increasing others in our populace have had an absolute guts-full of the now increasingly prominent characteristic of the science establishment of today, the utter negativity that is appearing across all of science led and deliberately cultivated by climate alarmist science that is seeping through the entire science establishment which can only lead to the collapse of public confidence and respect for science in all it’s forms with all the serious consequences for science and society that will bring.

    If scientists deliberately set about destroying trust in and respect for science in the populace they could have barely done it better or faster than the manner in which they are now so vehemently promoting gross negativity and fear amongst the populace all based on and supposedly due to the outcomes of their very own scientific research.

    [ For information; my brother, one of three, who like myself has no science training of any sort, was instrumental in helping to set up clover and medic pasture research programs in both the USA and in South Africa in the late 1980's. ]

    110

    • #
      ianl8888


      … very minor decreases in some nutrients in the crop

      Which nutrients and how minor, please ?

      I ask in order to have a factual basis to help rebut the inevitable public gossip

      00

      • #
        ROM

        IanL8888 @ # 40.1

        First; There is quite a lot of information on C3 and C4 plants which make up the plant world on which all life depends in some way.
        A lot of it is still too technical although still simple for those whose knowledge of the biological processes in plants is very limited.

        The simplest explanation I can find in a short search is here ; C3 plants & C4 plants
        The C4 plants which are adapted to higher CO2 levels are not affected in either yield or grain and forage quality by higher CO2 levels according to the FACE [ Free Air CO2 Enrichment ] experiments around the world.

        C4 plants comprise about 0.4% of the 260,000 known species of plants but that small number includes major agricultural plants such as corn, sorghum, sugarcane and millet.
        Also inluded are crabgrass and bermuda. Many tropical grasses and sedges are C4 plants.

        The C3 plants are the most common plant type. They respond in varying degrees to increasing CO2 and interestingly also by variety within a plant species such as considerably different varietal responses to increased CO2 across wheat varieties.
        Which will give the plant breeders a whole range of adaptability to breed future varieties from to take account of both yield improvements and to maintain grain quality characteristics which are changed with increasing CO2.

        C3 plants
        About 85% of plant species are C3 plants.
        They include the cereal grains: wheat, rice, barley, oats. Peanuts, cotton, sugar beets, tobacco, spinach, soybeans, and most trees are C3 plants.
        Most lawn grasses such as rye and fescue are C3 plants.

        For the changes in grain qualities and forage qualities under higher CO2 I suggest that you have a look at the Horsham AGFACE [ Australian Grains FACE ] experimental web site

        And through the links on this site where you will find the changes in nutrioents plus the data on yield increases from the enriched CO2 in the open field, open air AGFACE experiments

        2011 AGFACE sheet
        2014 AGFACE fact sheet

        There is also a video listed on the AGFACE page.

        At the current speed of increase in atmospheric CO2 levels, the plant breeders around the world have perhaps 15 to 20 years of time ahead to breed food crop varieties that will both take full advantage of increasing CO2 to significantly lift yields and therefore to alleviate the possibility of hunger and famine occurring as the world’s population continues to increase until maybe 2040 / 50 where demographers expect the global population to stabilise around the 9 billions or at a high of just over 10 billions before starting a long slow decline over centuries ahead before.
        That 15 or 20 year period will also allow plant breeders who have a very close network of international co-operation even with plant breeders in supposed hostile counties [ Politicians don't want to know about it as adequate food is far more important both to their populations and to their political and sometimes physical survival than nearly anything else so they turn a very blind eye to the exchanges between plant breeders and crop researchers from even hostile countries ] using ever better gene selection and ever better techniques to extract genes from other wheat varieties and also from the three grasses that through a natural and extraordinarily rare hybridization created the ancient plant precursors to our modern wheat varieties.

        When the hybridization occurred some 10,000 or far more years ago, it left behind some very beneficial genes in those wild grasses. ‘
        Hybrid wheat varieties using genes from those three wild grass progenitors of wheat are already in the breeder’s plots for the future selections of more adaptable and higher nutrient value and better disease resistance wheat varieties.

        Currently wheat has varieties that have protein ranges running from as low as 9% for biscuit manufacturer up to 14 % to 16% protein for the Durum wheats which are used in Pasta making.
        The type of protein is also important to the types of manufacturing of food qualities where processed wheat products are used.
        So with new breeding and gene selection technologies always improving any shortcomings if they could be called that in nutrients in wheat due to increased CO2, in another twenty or more years will be more than compensated for by the better varieties bred to take full advantage of the increased CO2 and to overcome any small nutrient deficiencies that can be currently tied to the increased CO2.

        And the question would be, would you rather have a full belly of slightly lower nutrient quality wheat products or be very hungry because there was not enough food to go around.

        Incidentally a quick sum;

        At 400 Parts Per Million of CO2 if turned into a monetary/ salary value which most would understand.

        If you earn’t $100,000 dollars a year then the same percentage of money as there is of atmospheric CO2 amounts to $40 for the year.

        Of this 400 ppm of CO2 mankind has contributed a maximum of 120 ppm over some 50 years
        On the equivalent $100,000 annual salary that amounts to a contribution since 1960 of about $0.8 or 80 cents per year.

        40

        • #
          Mike Jowsey

          ROM, you say “If you earn’t $100,000 dollars a year then the same percentage of money as there is of atmospheric CO2 amounts to $40 for the year. Of this 400 ppm of CO2 mankind has contributed a maximum of 120 ppm over some 50 years. On the equivalent $100,000 annual salary that amounts to a contribution since 1960 of about $0.8 or 80 cents per year.”

          While I appreciate the analogy, your sums aren’t quite right. $40/year is correct. But 400ppm over 120ppm is the ratio to apply to the $40, resulting in $40 * 0.3 = $12 per year. (That is, assuming that all of the 120 increase is of human origin.) Spreading the 120ppm over 50 years is erroneous, as it is the concentration of CO2 being considered.

          Anyhoo, still a good analogy. If was on that sort of money I would happily donate $12 a year to improving crop production worldwide!

          40

  • #
  • #
    Mattb

    So if he thinks the GWPF is great, why resign? I mean he’s 79, successful, can’t be short of cash, so why not just tough it out?

    Also is there actually any evidence of this so called intimidation? I can’t see any links in the article. Noting this blog’s previous cynicism at claims of death threats from climate change scientists?

    Anyway it’s pretty gutless to walk away from what you believe after 2 weeks because of a few gnarly emails.

    119

    • #
      bullocky

      Mattb:
      ‘Also is there actually any evidence of this so called intimidation.’
      -
      and,
      ‘Anyway it’s pretty gutless to walk away from what you believe after 2 weeks because of a few gnarly emails.’
      -
      -
      Such things are ‘trend lines’ made of!

      61

    • #
      ROM

      MattB
      I am just on 76 years old. And to put it bluntly my days of arguing and toughing it out are over and I’m glad of that.

      I just walk away now knowing that the opposition or my opponents might win this small argument but in the end they wlll not have achieved anything.
      At 30 or 40 or 50 or even 60 I would have taken them on .

      It only ever amounts to the mite on a flea’s gonads in it’s impact on history and humanity as time passes and for the next generations to come who will have their own little quibbles and conflicts to fight and argue about

      Only those who are in the same age bracket as Bengtsson know the way in which one’s approach to life changes when age and the end of your life is nearing.
      Something I never understood about my father until I reached his age.

      No criticism intended but you also will one day experience the same.
      You too no doubt one day as aging takes hold will start to walk away from a fight as it is no longer worth the personal angst and trauma that comes with those situations,

      221

      • #
        Annie

        Very well put ROM. I am in a similar age band and mode of thinking!

        70

      • #
        Mattb

        fair enough, but this guy is savvy/smart enough to know exactly what he was committing to in joining the GWPF. Or does he regularly commit to join groups when he has no idea what they are and what positions they hold?

        114

        • #
          Winston

          Mattb,

          The question is: why should Bengtsson have to “know what he was committing to” at all? Surely he was entitled to his opinion no matter how controversial, especially one formed with far more wisdom and knowledge than you are ever likely to possess, and shouldn’t have to expect any form of retribution, loss of friendships, suffer abuse, endure derision from his former peers, or be ostracised for assuming the only legitimate stance a true scientist can take- that being of impartial and objective scepticism.

          Those who have intimidated him into withdrawing from his rightful and considered opinion are beneath contempt. These mediocre minds hide their lack of expertise in the huddled security of the consensus flock, because they either lack the character, the courage, the intelligence or the personal integrity to pursue the truth above dogma. They stand condemned by these actions, IMHO.

          80

          • #
            Mattb

            people who disagree with him are also entitled to their opinions, and they are entitled to tell him about them.

            112

            • #
              Winston

              That is somewhat beside the point, Matt, as you well know.

              The point is he should be free to express them without reprisal, but that subtle difference seems to have eluded you.

              I’m not ostracising you, trying to get you sacked from your job, nor even trying to prevent you aligning yourself to your chosen lunatic fringe zealotry of choice. Instead, I prefer to point out where your arguments lack rigour or defy logic and let the observer reading this decide on the relative merits of the argument.

              Were the shoe on the other foot, I would not condone or countenance such behaviour toward alarmists, but rather to subject their perceived evidence to scrutiny. The fact is, you have yet to say you disapprove of such behaviour, and that speaks volumes for the rationale you live by.

              120

            • #
              bullocky

              Mattb:
              “people who disagree with him are also entitled to their opinions, and they are entitled to tell him about them.”
              -
              And those people may be asked to substantiate their disagreement. If their reasoning is sound, an improved outcome may ensue.
              If it is baseless conjecture, …………

              40

            • #
              Sean McHugh

              As Winston says, that’s somewhat blatantly beside the point. It’s called a straw man. The maneuver is seen as a form of dishonesty and usually comes from the weaker side of the debate.

              00

        • #
          PhilJourdan

          How many smart people did not survive the Pol Pot regime?

          The issue is not intelligence, but integrity. And alarmists lack it.

          70

      • #
        Ross

        Well said ROM.

        As I’ve said @29.1 I think the Professor in this one simple act ( writing the letter , publicising it and exposing the “Team”) has achieved more than if he stayed and worked away behind the scenes at the GWPF helping out with research etc. He has done his bit. That letter will be kept by many a reproduced at the right times.
        The fact that MattB is asking for evidence tells you something –he knows what effect the incident will have.

        100

        • #
          Mattb

          that’s my point though. he’s achieved more this way than by working quietly at GWPF. When you can achieve som much with a letter, does it matter if it’s a set up?

          112

          • #
            Annie

            That was meant to be a down tick, not up. It’s late and I’m tired. I think your attitude is rather questionable Mattb. Perhaps you could try a little humanity?

            60

          • #
            bullocky

            Surely, Mattb, Professor Lewandowsky achieved a lot more by having to retract a scholarly research paper from a respected scientific journal?

            50

          • #

            Mattb “When you can achieve som much with a letter, does it matter if it’s a set up?”
            Are you kidding me? Are you actually advocating lying in the service of truth?

            61

            • #
              the Griss

              “Are you actually advocating lying in the service of truth?”

              He’s a Green local councillor (or something else very minor in the Green junta.)… of course he is advocating lying.

              22

            • #
              Mattb

              Mr Sprat. No. It was sarcasm.

              06

    • #
      Annie

      Sorry Mattb…you are right out of order there. Have a down tick this time. Have you reached anywhere near your three score years and ten yet? Energy tends to be somewhat sapped as the years go on but life’s experience opens one’s mind to awareness of the shenanigans going on to try to control people.

      101

    • #

      So Matt – you think Bengtsson would join GWPF, “fake up” and exaggerate claims of intimidation, and leave in a publicity firestorm after two weeks?

      Maybe a respected senior scientist could suddenly discover at 79 that he wants to burn off many of his longstanding colleagues and play a media game. Sure…

      Let’s ask: “what’s in it for him”.

      If Bengtsson was gutless he would have written to GWPF saying that he regretted he was over-committed, or that he had just noticed some minor GWPF issue that he had a philosophical disagreement with. That would have pandered to the bullies –

      201

      • #
        Mattb

        people do the darndest things Jo.

        115

        • #
          Mattb

          If it was someone at the CRU claiming unreasonable intimidation I have a feeling you’d be asking for some evidence.

          312

          • #
            Andrew McRae

            Can’t believe I’m saying this, but yes, MattB, that is is a fair question.

            I’d like to see Dr Bengtsson’s description of any intimidating phone calls and conversations he had, plus any pressure emails reprinted with sender’s identity removed.

            Even without specific evidence to support it, I did not mind believing that he perceived pressure had been put on him in roughly the manner he describes and just on stereotypes it does not sound likely that he was bunging on an act. I would not expect the above evidence to contradict this view, but we should know what type of pressure we are dealing with.

            For one thing, what if there was a way to reform our science-based institutions in a way that mitigated this type of threat? Is there some way to arrange the money handling, peer review, co-author publication requirements, and grant decisions, such that scientists could expect to be reprimanded for deviations from scientific method and integrity, but not for pursuing alternative hypotheses? We don’t know that answer unless we know what specific tactics were used successfully to intimidate the professor. Maybe he was just flimsy, maybe there was something nastier, people will disagree on how much is too much, but right now we have no specifics on which to disagree.

            Seeing the specific tactics would be useful from a security engineering perspective, if nothing else.

            31

          • #
            Bulldust

            Kinda like the ‘death threats’ against Aussie academics that were never seen? Were you calling for that evidence as well MattB? Somehow I think you probably didn’t… Not saying it is wrong to ask, just reminding people that your blinkers are firmly attached.

            121

            • #
              Mattb

              given that those discussions were held on this here blog BD I’m sure you would be happy to link to me championing said academics. Who’s got the blinkers on?

              013

              • #
                bullocky

                ‘Calling for evidence’ has suddenly become ‘championing said academics’ eh Mattb?…..
                -
                Easily worth a red thumb!

                90

              • #
                the Griss

                You don’t have blinkers.. you have a BLINDFOLD.. as usual

                See nothing , know nothing…. the faux-Greenie agenda.

                71

            • #
              Mattb

              I wonder if he recieved email like the following would that be enough to prompt his letter?

              “If we see you continue, we will get extremely organised and precise against you. We will not do so if you rightfully argue against our points from a science view. But we will if you choose to stray into attacks on us as people or as a movement. The institution and funders that support you will find the attention concerning”

              19

              • #
                bullocky

                ‘I wonder if he recieved email like the following would that be enough to prompt his letter?’
                -
                How long is a piece of string?

                30

              • #
                Bulldust

                An anonymous and vague email as opposed to scientific colleagues you know telling you to desist? You understand there’s a subtle difference yes? He is protecting them by not publishing details.

                22

            • #
              Mattb

              or:
              “Just do your science or you will end up collateral damage in the war, GET IT,” reads one email”

              18

          • #
            Sean McHugh

            Like Andrew, I would now like to see the evidence for the intimidation against Lennart Bengtsson and hence, scepticism. I have just been on Steve McIntyre’s site saying the same. Matt, doesn’t this already demonstrate a difference in religious-faith requirements between the two sides?

            00

      • #
        diogenese2

        What Matt & many others are missing is the subtle and insidious nature of “peer pressure”. If you saw the e-mails and heard the conversations I doubt if you would even recognise the pressure being applied. If you have seen children brought to absolute despair by “trivial” playground taunts you would begin to appreciate what has been going on.
        Old colleagues, friends and lovers always know your vulnerabilities and where to apply the knife. Your opponents can only guess – and wrongly.
        It is easy to stand up to your enemies, sometimes impossible to resist your friends.
        This incident demonstrates the fear that permeates the whole “climate community” – that the lie they are living is about to be exposed and the trust in their “authority” gone with the wind. It is close to the point where the “cause” no longer suits the political agenda. It has failed and even 30 years of effort can go down the pan in moments.

        80

        • #
          Mattb

          lol how was the “subtle and insidious” nature of correspondence to CRU academics. This blog pretty much told them that unless the emails said “I have your kids and will kill them if you don’t stop” they were just girls’ blouses who need to drink some concrete and toughen the ‘f’ up.

          010

          • #
            diogenese2

            It seems my chronic “Cassandra Syndrome” is brwaking out in that I know what I am talking about but nobody else does, especially you Matt, but then that is to be expected – pack animals do not do networking.
            The hurt to Prof. Bengtssom does not come from vicious, mindless trolls but from old colleagues whom he respects and whose goodwill he values. Irrational hostility from such a source destroys self esteem and trust in others. He has clearly decided that the game is not worth the candle – and at his age who can blame him. He is beyond your comprehension.

            80

          • #
            Bulldust

            I also got correspondence from a Nigerian government official once and he needed my help moving millions of dollars …

            50

            • #
              Sean McHugh

              Once! I have had two in one day, from different ‘officials’. I considered giving each the other’s contact details so they could help each other out.

              10

          • #
            bhullocky

            -
            “This blog pretty much told them……” is the key phrase

            20

      • #
        Rod Stuart

        Then of course there is the issue of Brandon Schollenberger and the University of Queensland.
        McCarthyism is alive and well in this country as well as the USA.

        10

  • #
    pat

    re Lennart Bengtsson: any threat to the flow of money will be resisted, by any means necessary:

    15 May: ABC: Elise Worthington: Research centre gets $9m to study coastal climate change risks
    A Gold Coast research facility will use a $9 million federal budget allocation to further its study of climate change and its impact.
    The National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility based at Griffith University will work with scientists, state and community organisations to help local governments make better decisions about managing the impacts of climate change…
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-15/research-centre-gets-9m-to-study-coastal-climate/5454482

    20

  • #

    A conspiracy to intimidate, threaten, or oppress that restricts a person’s Constitutional right to freedom of association can result in criminal prosecution in the United States, and a federal prison sentence of up to ten years. I do not know that that is what occurred in this instance, nor do US laws apply in the UK where GWPF is located, however such a stern penalty should give others pause.

    see “Prosecuting Those Who Force a Scientist to Resign: Is Intimidation Free of Consequences?” at

    http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2014/05/prosecuting-those-who-force-scientist.html

    70

  • #
    Rokdoktor

    I recently attended the IPA talk given by Dr Patrick Michaels in Perth and commented on the modern “Lysenkoism” that was appeared to be growing in the climate science community as the observations increasingly called the CO2 warming model into serious question. Didn’t expect it to become this vicious and this obvious, so soon. The warmists are feeling the pressure of reality and are turning like a pack of dogs on anyone who points out the emperor’s lack of clothes. Expect it to get a lot worse before it gets better.

    130

  • #
    pat

    13 May: UK Financial Times: Pilita Clark: The ‘black hole’ of Chinese Carbon Trading
    One man is scrolling slowly through his emails. Another is flopped across his desk doing a good imitation of being asleep…
    “There are currently around two to three trades a day,” says Yang Wang, the exchange’s carbon trading centre director.
    That is up from two or three a week in November, when Beijing became the third of four Chinese cities and two provinces to launch a pilot emissions trading system since June…
    As prices languish in the largest carbon market in the EU and Australia ditches plans for a carbon tax, environmental activists have seized on China’s efforts as proof that action to tackle climate change is far from dead.
    However, nearly a year into the test run, the pilot schemes are provoking considerable bafflement and frustration among those trying to grapple with a carbon market with Chinese characteristics…
    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c9b0faf8-d9e1-11e3-b3e3-00144feabdc0.html

    14 May: Brooklyn College: Brooklyn College Graduates Over 4,000 Students at 2014 Commencement Exercises
    Keynoting the master’s ceremonies are award-winning author Edwidge Danticat and economist and entrepreneur Dr. Richard Sandor ’62…
    Dr. Sandor will receive the Distinguished Alumni Award for creating the foundation for the U.S. futures market, and for pioneering the field of environmental finance…
    Dr. Sandor is the author of Good Derivatives: A Story of Financial and Environmental Innovation, and is the main author of Environmental Markets: A New Asset Class. In 2007 he was named by Time magazine as one of its “Heroes for the Planet” and the magazine also named him one of the “Heroes of the Environment.”
    Dr. Sandor received an honorary degree of Doctor of Science from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in 2004. In 2012 he was presented with the World Federation of Exchanges Award for Excellence. In 2013, Dr. Sandor was named Chevalier dans l´ordre de la Legion d´Honneur (Knight in the French National Order of the Legion of Honor), the highest decoration granted by the French government, for his accomplishments in the field of environmental finance and carbon trading…
    http://www.brooklyn.cuny.edu/web/news/bcnews/bcnews_140514.php

    00

  • #
    Al in Cranbrook

    Gotta luv Mark Steyn…

    http://www.steynonline.com/6336/village-idiot

    Notes this latest incident near the end, and adds he’ll have more to say later.

    30

    • #

      More from Steyn now: Bengtsson Burners

      What would happen if Lennart Bengtsson were to sit down with Nigel Lawson and suffer no consequences? Likewise, what would happen if the psephological darling of the 2012 election Nate Silver were permitted to promote a “denier” like Roger Pielke, Jr and get away with it? That sort of thing could prove contagious: “Just give me ten who are stout-hearted men/And I’ll soon show you ten thousand more!” as Nelson Eddy remarked in similar circumstances.

      More at the linked article.

      40

  • #
    Geoff Sherrington

    I’m nearly 73. Prof Ian Plimer is 68 or so. He once mortgaged or sold his home for funds to prosecute his public stance against Creationism. Please don’t knock the man unless you have shown similar conviction strength.
    Prof Bengtsson is 79. I have never met him, I do not know if any bloggers above have. It is too easy for a blogger to project his/her personaility onto the Prof and make erroneous accusations about his actions. Shame. He might simply be a shy person whose withdrawl from extra publicity is not unexpected given the pressure he describes.
    That fire in your belly that might give you pride is age related. We all slow down. Remember the Profs because of their declarations about good science, not because of what you guess about them. Geoff..

    150

    • #
      ianl8888

      Agreed, Geoff

      Those above who regard Bengtsson as a “coward” (unhappily, including Jennifer Marohasy), are not yet in their late 70′s. They seem not to grasp what the alternative to ageing is

      At that age, all Bengtsson really wants is peace of mind. Now he will not have it, at least from some of those he thought of as colleagues, despite his life-long productivity. It’s actually very cruel

      90

    • #
      Yonniestone

      “Anger is an energy, an energy that goes out of man to fight his way. You see it in an undeveloped and untrained man as passion, showing itself in many brutal forms, beating down opposition, caring not what methods are used if he strikes out of his way all that which opposes the gratification of his will, and in that form it is an undisciplined and destructive energy of Nature.”

      The path of discipleship. Annie Besant.

      I agree never underestimate the zeal or drive of an aged person for a cause, they’re just smarter at going about it.

      40

  • #
    john karajas

    Perhaps Lennart Bengtsson and Professor David Bellamy should get together and mutually console themselves on the fact that they both have attracted the ire of Green extremists for honestly coming out and expressing scepticism of CAGW. What a travesty of justice!

    110

  • #
    handjive

    Meanwhile,

    University of Reading researchers found a link between increased thunderstorm activity on Earth and streams of high-energy particles accelerated by the solar wind, offering compelling evidence that particles from space help trigger lightning bolts.

    Publishing their study today, 15 May 2014, in Environmental Research Letters, researchers from Reading’s Department of Meteorology found a substantial and significant increase in lightning rates across Europe for up to 40 days after the arrival of high-speed solar winds, which can travel at more than a million miles per hour, into the Earth’s atmosphere.

    Add + Svensmark’s Cosmic Jackpot

    Cloud formation may be linked to cosmic rays
    “‘cosmic rays’ from deep space might be creating clouds in Earth’s atmosphere and changing the climate.
    Yet an experiment at CERN, Europe’s high-energy physics laboratory near Geneva, Switzerland, is finding tentative evidence for just that.”

    30

  • #
    Safetyguy66

    How could any scientist with any self respect align themselves with nonsense like this:

    French Foreign Minister: ‘We Have 500 Days to Avoid Climate Chaos’

    http://cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/french-foreign-minister-we-have-500-days-avoid-climate-chaos

    All this chicken little nonsense has tried and failed to scare people for decades. Yet the cry wolf brigade still think all they have to do to get attention is add more wolves.

    Earth Day, 1970:

    “We have about five more years at the outside to do something.” • Kenneth Watt, ecologist

    “Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” • George Wald, Harvard Biologist

    “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.” • Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

    “By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.” • Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

    “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation.” • Denis Hayes, chief organizer for Earth Day

    70

    • #
      PeterK

      SG66: I think the 500 day prognosis by the French Minister is about right – that’s about how long Ding Dong Obama has left in office – this is his last great opportunity to destroy American Industry, the electricity grid with useless green technology. He just might be the guy who impoverishes every working stiff American. Stupidity at the highest level.

      40

  • #

    > I think a check of Lennart Bengtsson’s emails

    Sure: he should publish them. Then we’d discover just how much he was vapouring; which is why he won’t dare published them.

    > I’m the guy who threatened you with legal action

    I’m afraid I didn’t even notice. Legal threats from anons aren’t very interesting.

    > No doubt Mr Connolly… But that has to be ‘moderated.

    I’ll probably correct your spelling for you. And point out that CAGW is a denialist strawman.

    017

    • #
      GeoChemist

      Connelley what an idiot. If Bengsston releases the emails wouldn’t he then face the retribution he is trying to avoid. The fact that he made the reasons known may be enough to complete the damage, after which it would make sense to release them. But it appears he still wants to practice his science. Gawd are your a flaming turd of a human.

      80

    • #
      tom0mason

      You are the same ‘Stoat’ refered to here?

      http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.7662/pub_detail.asp

      Here is Connolley in action on his blog, scrabbling for dirt:

      So, where are the papers? You can’t have a scientific career without papers. There are some early ones – The Multiple Production of Mesons from 1948 with Oppenheimer, no less. Or Multiple Scattering in an Infinite Medium, 1950 – worthy maths-ish thing, I’d guess. But past the late-50’s early 60’s it suddenly gets very thin indeed. I’d guess, without knowing more, that he gave up science and moved into admin.

      And here he is, in his role as a Wikipedia editor caught by Watts Up With That doctoring Professor Lewis’s Wikipedia
      (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/13/wikipedia-turbo-revisionism-by-william-connolley-continues/ )
      entry so as to edit out that all-important resignation letter.
      William Connolley – a green party activist – has form in this regard. Lots of form – as I first reported here last year – drawing on Lawrence Solomon’s definitive National Post expose “How Wikipedia’s green doctor rewrote 5,428 climate articles”….

      So you like to belittle worthy people when they resign or leave an organisation for good reasons. Tell me apart from screwing-up Wikipedia entries what have you done? Anything worthy for the human race?

      IMO you sound more like a weasel than a stoat!

      00

  • #

    > drops in-like a turd into a toilet

    I know you don’t like *me*, but likening this blog to a toilet seems rather disrespectful to our host, no matter how much the poor quality of some comments might make the comparison seem apt.

    515

  • #
    pat

    eventually the general public will demand their political representatives put an end to special interest CAGW activism that is further damaging an already-weakened economy:

    14 May: Bloomberg: Coal Missing Boom as Climate Foes Clean Asia’s Backyard
    By Lynn Doan and Mario Parker
    Bowie Resource Partners LLC wanted to export coal from the port of Oakland,
    California, promising thousands of construction jobs and a $3 million-a-year
    payroll in a city whose unemployment rate was almost double the national
    average.
    Oakland’s response: No, thanks…
    The Sierra Club and other environmental groups have scuttled three of six
    coal terminals proposed in the U.S. Pacific Northwest that would have
    shipped as much as 146 million metric tons annually to booming markets in
    Asia…
    Their new rallying cry: Not in your backyard.
    “Climate change isn’t an intangible thing anymore –people are feeling it,”
    Jess Dervin-Ackerman, an organizer with the Sierra Club who lives in
    Oakland, said by phone May 12.”This has become about us enabling other
    countries to do things that aren’t in the best interest of the planet.” …
    China will keep importing coal and much of it will come from U.S. mines via
    Canadian ports where companies including Westshore Terminals Ltd. and Ridley
    Terminals Inc. are sendingas much as 3.76 million tons a month abroad.
    Europe, where half of U.S. coal exports go, brought in 14.9 million tons in
    the fourth quarter, up 4 percent from the prior three months…
    China imported about 360 million tons last year and is expected to increase
    its reliance on the fuel by 54 percent by 2035, according to a Feb. 27 ICF
    International Inc. (ICFI) report. The country has 558 gigawatts of new
    coal-fired power plant capacity in the works, the report shows. Its
    benchmark price averaged 535yuan ($86) a ton as of May 11.
    “Like it or not, the coal is here to stay for a long time to come,” Keisuke
    Sadamori, the director for energy markets and security at the IEA, said in a
    Jan. 29 presentation at the Center for Strategic & International Studies in
    Washington…
    “We can no longer take the impacts of these fossil-fuel developments in an
    isolated way,” Cesia Kearns, a Sierra Club campaign representative who is
    fighting coal exports from Oregon and Washington, said by phone May 12.
    “This ties people together from different cities, different regions and even
    across the Pacific Ocean, to our neighbors in India and China, who are all
    standing up to Big Coal now.”
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-13/coal-missing-boom-as-climate-foes-clean-asia-s-backyard.html

    00

  • #
    pat

    the hypocrisy of the CAGW zealots:

    good, clean money:

    14 May: CNBC: Lawrence Delevingne: Ex Goldman risk chief: Stanford coal cut
    a ‘tipping point’
    Litterman’s warning on risks to energy companies from impending taxes was
    recently raised by another prominent hedge fund manager, Chris Hohn of The
    Children’s Investment Fund Management.
    “If you believe over time a carbon tax is coming-which I do-and if you
    believe in climate change, 80 percent of the reserves of energy companies
    can never be extracted. All these oil and gas companies and the coal
    companies will have stranded reserves, basically,” Hohn recently said in an
    Institutional Investor cover story on investing and climate change.
    Hohn has joined forces with hedge funders Jeremy Grantham of $117 billion
    GMO and Steve Mandel of $27 billion Lone Pine Capital in backing a new
    Showtime series on global warming, “Years of Living Dangerously.”
    http://www.cnbc.com/id/101669392

    bad, dirty money:

    13 May: Bradblog: Brad Friedman: BRAD BLOG’s Christie/Koch Bros. Scoop
    Picked Up For Showtime’s ‘Years of Living Dangerously’
    VIDEO: WATCH: ‘Governor Christie and the Kochtopus’…
    The crowd cheered loudly as Koch, whose estimated $22 billion personal
    fortune derives from his family’s oil refinery empire, described Christie’s
    unilateral withdrawal, on behalf of New Jersey, from a regional
    cap-and-trade market created by 10 northeastern states to curb industrial
    greenhouse gas emissions…
    http://www.bradblog.com/?p=10622

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    Steve McIntyre calls it a fatwa

    .

    Gold pure gold

    90

  • #

    > I’m not ostracising you, trying to get you sacked from your job

    It would seem that the GWPF isn’t beyond such behaviour though:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/nigel-lawsons-climatechange-denial-charity-intimidated-environmental-expert-9350069.html

    I’m sure the crowd here will unite as one in a ringing condenmation of the GWPF for this. No?

    012

    • #
      Winston

      Did you read the article?

      Mr Ward refuses to name the “trustee” involved (if indeed he is one) and the GWPF denies knowing anything about it. It could be a fit up, it could be genuinely an associate of theirs acting on his own recognisance without permission, or sundry other possibilities. Nevertheless, if those actions were performed by a genuine sceptic then they would and should be roundly condemned, absolutely.

      However, in the history of this debate, it has been almost exclusively the province of warmistas like yourself to attempt to destroy the careers and reputations of sceptics, not the other way round. One swallow doesn’t make a summer. And I would also suggest that only he who is without fault should cast the first stone, William.

      100

    • #
      crakar24

      WC,

      Before i pass comment on this can you please detail what exactly it is that you find wrong with this story as your comment is a little vague

      30

    • #
      the Griss

      Talking to The WC.

      One assumes that anything you post is soaked in misinformation and lies.

      That is all you have, and all you are capable of.

      The initials WC describes you precisely.

      70

    • #
      tom0mason

      WC aka stoat

      Will you be quoting this in your next re-editing of reality in Wikipedia?

      00

  • #
    Rogueelement451

    Meanwhile over at HotWhopper , there is at least one intelligent comment , apart from mine of course.
    “AnonymousMay 15, 2014 at 5:21 PM

    We shouldn’t be quite so pleased with ourselves. Just like the email “scandal”, this will eventually bite us in the ass. We’re already losing public support and, now, this? The deniers have won. Washington won’t do anything. Canada already pulled out. Australia is gutting its programs and a repeal is around the corner. Germany is rethinking its energy program. How dumb are we? I’d say we’re pretty dumb.”
    So intelligent that I suspect Pointman might have got in under the radar to score an own goal for the the alarmists.

    70

    • #
      crakar24

      Pointman???? Last time i checked he was wearing the same shirt as us so it cant be an own goal can it, looks like he snuck in behind the defence(possibly off side) and scored for the good guys. :-)

      30

      • #
        Rogueelement451

        An own goal as a pretend alarmist ,, he has hinted on his site that he sometimes manages to write as an alarmist ,just to show them up. Without actually knowing , I can see some pretty loopy comments on The Guardian and can guess that someone is having some fun, either that or there really are some crazies who want to kill us.

        50

  • #
    ROM

    Got a problem have you William?

    Not getting noticed enough any more after Wikipedia sacked you for your ethics free activities there.

    So you hike over here to JoNova’s get a bit more noticed

    You must be getting desperate and getting really down cast that the blogsphere is no longer bothering about you and your snakiness on Stoat and your desperate attempts to be noticed again.
    Says quite something about Jo’s increasing popularity and influence across politics and science and the blogsphere that you have to come over here to Jo’s to get noticed again doesn’t it?

    You’re a loser William and getting to be an even bigger loser as the whole of your increasingly vicious alarmist dogma and ideology unravels as Nature just keeps right on doing it’s thing.
    And there is nothing, absolutely nothing that the ethics free William Connolleys of this world can do about it.

    You’re a loser William and you know it.

    132

  • #
    Richo

    One of my main motivations for becoming a rational climate change skeptic is that I hate bullies with a passion no matter what the cause is. Its a pity that Lennart couldn’t have hung in tough. But he probably made a value judgment that he couldn’t be bothered putting up with the grief from these warmist bullies. However, I think that Lennard should name and shame these bigoted intolerant totalitarian idiots.

    71

    • #

      > becoming a rational climate change skeptic is that I hate bullies

      That’s not rational. Hating bullies is free, easy and cheap as motherhood and apple pie. But its got nothing to do with the validity of the argument, from a rational viewpoint. What you’re describing is an emotional “skeptic”, not a rational one.

      016

      • #
        Rogueelement451

        You will note that Richo said “one of my main reasons” which infers obviously that he had many reasons .
        Splitting hairs for any particular purpose Mr Connolley? Perhaps like Rapunzel you wish to escape from your cloistered tower using a rope made of hair?

        100

        • #
          shortie of greenbank

          Sorry but I couldn’t let this one pass.

          He is using a rope made of straw.

          60

      • #
        crakar24

        WC,

        In the defence of Richo i must say i find your comment to be offensive i have engaged people like you in debate with good intentions only to be battered from pillar to post i have been accused of all sorts of crimes ragning from denying the holcaust to killing the yet to born of the yet to born of the yet to be born.

        This is bullying William Connelly and your purile response to Richo is just another version of, if you wish to continue to be held in high regard on this site i suggest you restrict your comments to the science rather than simply throwing darts at people to get a response.

        120

        • #
          the Griss

          “I find your comment to be offensive”

          That is all this twerp is capable of.

          Lowest of the low. Scum of scum.

          That is his whole being.

          And HE KNOWS IT !!!

          I don’t think ANYONE on this site would hold him in the least regard.

          72

          • #

            >> crakar24:
            >> i find your comment to be offensive… This is bullying

            > the Griss: Lowest of the low. Scum of scum

            Mmmm, somewhat one-sided taking of offence, no? The rules here are clear: you can say absolutely anything you like against anyone on the IPCC side. But if anyone on the IPCC side makes the least objection, that becomes “offensive”.

            And you wonder why no-one takes you seriously.

            312

            • #
              the Griss

              You are only on your own side…..

              You are meaningless in relation to the IPCC.. nothing but an errand boy.

              Yet that is your life.. poor little worm. !

              52

            • #
              the Griss

              How does it feel to be a toad for the dregs of the IPCC ?

              61

            • #
              the Griss

              Which of the guys in black are you?

              Phil is obvious the one with the abacus.

              None is sniffy their crotch.. seems you missed that meeting.

              50

            • #
              the Griss

              And NO offense I could give you is more than the offense you have given to science. !
              [We know you feel strongly about this, but ad hominem comments do not help the debate, and it reflects badly on Jo. If I had seen these coming through, I would have killed them -Fly]

              40

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        So you believe that you cannot be rational and emotional?

        That implies that all rationality must be unemotional, and all emotion is irrational.

        Go on, admit it, you are Dr Spock in drag …

        50

        • #

          No, of course, not, you can be both.

          The point I’m trying to get across is that the argument he was making was an emotional one, and yet he was labelling it as a rational one. I didn’t expect this kind of distinction to be easy to communicate, because you lot really aren’t very good at reading: you’re all rather emotional in fact. Text from people you hate goes into the “it must be wrong, I don’t need to understand what he is saying” bucket.

          011

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            You make an error of generalisation.

            he was making was an emotional [argument], and yet he was labelling it as a rational one

            But perhaps he arrived at his emotional response or argument through a rational process.

            Is it unreasonable to surmise that a rational position, once arrived at by logic and reason, can also create an emotional response?

            I would argue that the opposite would be much less common, if possible at all.

            60

          • #
            the Griss

            From someone like you, who has never experiences “rational” or “emotion” (do slugs have emotions ?)

            and wouldn’t have any idea what either of them were…

            That really is quite bizarre.

            51

          • #
            Rogueelement451

            Billy boy , a quote from your own site
            “Ha ha: Lennart Bengtsson leaves advisory board of GWPF
            Posted by William M. Connolley on May 14, 2014 ”

            Does that appear to be a rational comment to you?
            So do you think I or anyone should save this comment for posterity or consign to your “bucket”.
            I mean , according to you I,m not very good at reading , but what do you think I should infer from your comment?
            It would appear to me , dumb ass that I am ,that you find the resignation of one of the worlds most eminent climate scientists,amusing, worthy of a good laugh ,so funny as to induce your vomit inducing smug headline?
            Please point out the error of my ways,I,m always up for a good laugh myself.

            70

            • #

              > Does that appear to be a rational comment to you?

              Yes. The only rational response to this nonsense is to laugh at it.

              > that you find the resignation… worthy of a good laugh

              No: mostly its sad. But laughing in the face of sadness is a long British tradition. I think its sad that LB has fallen for the GWPF nonsense; and I think its sad that having realised his error, he isn’t prepared to be honest and admit it. Blaming his error on other people is feeble.

              111

              • #
                the Griss

                You truly are a disgusting piece of humanity, aren’t you.

                CO2 is the very least of air problems when you are around.

                52

              • #
                Rogueelement451

                Yes I have read your line of reasoning on your blog and at HotWhopper , congratulations on being able , without a shred of evidence,to have come up with the answer to everything in one go.
                Considering that the Normal meme of alarmists is to demand proof , evidence, cited peer reviewed literature to contest the evidence against GGE, then are you not being slightly presumptuous in guessing what may have happened?
                It could be any number of reasons , speculating is not clever.
                It will come out in due course and we shall see . It is in the meantime very sad for the man.
                I am also British so laughing in adversity is a trait I understand ,laughing at sadness is sick.

                90

              • #
                bullocky

                William Connelley;
                “No: mostly its sad. But laughing in the face of sadness is a long British tradition. I think its sad that LB has fallen for the GWPF nonsense; and I think its sad that having realised his error, he isn’t prepared to be honest and admit it. Blaming his error on other people is feeble.”
                -
                Most extraordinary.
                Readers will be hoping you didn’t indulge this sort of fanciful judgement when you were editing at Wikipedia.

                40

              • #
                Bulldust

                Griss … he’s hardcore Green, so what do you expect? Probably thought the 10:10.org effort was in good taste too.

                50

          • #
            James Bradley

            William, sadly it seems to be a natural human characteristic to demonize those we disagree with at an ideological level e.g. warmists paint sceptics as ‘deniers.’

            50

  • #
    pat

    Connie planning a new “fix”. read all:

    Brussels 14 May: EU News: European Commission Press Release: Emissions trading: 2013 data show lower
    emissions but surplus of allowances persists
    Climate Action Commissioner Connie Hedegaard said: “The good news is that
    emissions declined faster than in previous years even as Europe’s economies
    started to recover from the recession. However, there is still a growing
    surplus of emission allowances that risks undermining the orderly
    functioning of the carbon market. The Commission has taken action to address
    this with the already adopted back-loading measure. But as this is only a
    temporary measure, the Commission has proposed to establish a market
    stability reserve. Now it is up to the European Parliament and the Council
    to take it forward and move ahead swiftly in their discussions. “…
    Allowance surplus growing again
    The cumulative surplus in emission allowances increased further to more than
    2.1 billion for the 2013 compliance year from almost two billion at the end
    of 2012…
    (WITH LINKS)
    http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-561_en.htm?locale=en

    00

  • #
    crakar24

    In keeping with tradition my next comment will once again be completely off topic.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucedorminey/2014/01/20/sun-flatlining-into-grand-minimum-says-solar-physicist/

    Dont be fooled by the headline all you hand wringing warmbots as i give you this

    Could a Maunder Minimum mitigate a warming climate?

    Not likely, says Hathaway.

    Although the rise of global temperatures seen in “the last decade or so seems to have currently leveled off,” says Hathaway, he notes that even a Maunder Minimum would still not be enough to counter the warming effects of anthropogenic climate change.

    If anything, a Maunder Minimum may simply make existing weather and short term climate even more unusual and difficult to predict.

    10

  • #
    pat

    Jimmy Wales calling William Connolley!

    14 May: BBC: Google ruling ‘astonishing’, says Wikipedia founder Wales
    The European Courts of Justice ruled on Tuesday that an individual could demand that “irrelevant or outdated” information be deleted from results…
    Mr Wales said it was “one of the most wide-sweeping internet censorship rulings that I’ve ever seen”…
    http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-27407017

    30

    • #
      Rogueelement451

      The Spanish mann in the picture has an eerie resemblance to an infamous science buffoon , I can,t quite place the name , man oh man ,my memory is terrible.

      30

  • #

    > are you not being slightly presumptuous in guessing what may have happened?

    Why single me out? Plenty of people in this thread, and elsewhere, are making wild assumptions. The reason you’re complaining about me is that you don’t like my line of argument. You’re happily allowing through, unchallenged, and number of assumptions you happen to agree with.

    In this case, the obvious reaction from the likes of you – or from our host – is to *demand* in the loudest possible terms that LB release these terrible, terrible emails. So we can all judge for ourselves.

    Yet I don’t hear you doing that. Isn’t that odd? Its almost as though you’d rather not know. As though you’re happier with just LB’s statement, and no facts to back it up.

    08

    • #
      Geoff Sherrington

      William,
      Nobody has any right to demand the private correspondence of others. It is impolite, if manners count. That could be why there is little call for such action from bloggers here.
      You appear to have recognised the disaster proportions of the bully actions of said colleagues. You seem to have become more vocal and extreme, as if you are in panic. You ought to be.
      People on this blog are predominately concerned by the poor standard of science used to promote activism, alarm and insult like that 10:10 movie of exploding children.
      If you wish to make a real contribution here, you could start by explaining why there is yet no single, authoritative, replicated, accepted scientific paper giving a quantitative mathematical link between near surface global atmospheric temperatures and their GHG or CO2 concentrations in that atmosphere.
      Do you not think it strange that the most fundamental assumption in this field has not been shown to apply?
      What is your motivation?

      110

      • #
        garhighway

        You do realize that are you taking on faith the unsubstantiated factual assertions of Dr. Bengtsson? That’s not very “skeptical” of you.

        08

        • #
          Daniel G.

          This isn’t a matter of science, there’s no reason to distrust Dr. Bengtsson.

          Or are you perhaps insinuating that he is being dishonest?

          70

          • #
            garhighway

            I’m saying that it would be a very human thing for him to have realized he miscalculated how his GWPF affiliation would be viewed by his peers, (especially in the US where they hadn’t been reading the stuff he was posting in European blogs in Swedish), that he was embarrassed by the depth of that miscalculation and chose to deal with his embarrassment by blaming others. No pat of that sequence of events seems very surprising to me.

            09

            • #
              Rogueelement451

              Wow ! you have invented an entire scenario out of thin air!zero evidence ,zero relevance and zero tolerance , do you work for the IPCC by any chance?

              10

        • #
          bullocky

          The pseudo-logic works like this;
          - The null hypothesis is that Dr Bengtsson is lying.
          - This is supported by;
          1. his claims are unsubstantiated and…
          2. Geoff Sherrington has accepted Dr Bengtssons assertions on faith and
          3. Geoff Sherrington hasn’t been ‘skeptical’.
          Therefore Dr Bengtsson is lying.

          Schlafen meine Kinder, kein Unglück wird über euch kommen heute abend!

          20

          • #
            stephenwv

            I see. Dr B quit because he wanted to make it look like the warming nut jobs persecute opposition as they have been doing around the world to everyone. He is lying because he does not wish to make a federal case to give the nut job alarmists a bigger platform to lie from.
            Got it.

            20

        • #
          PhilJourdan

          He resigned. And the validation of his allegations is contained in the words of the idiot connelley here and the jackals feasting on his remains over at Judith Curry.

          The duck has quacked.

          60

        • #
    • #
      Rogueelement451

      That comment is first of all a thread or two down from my original question and quite simply irrational,for a start I am not agreeing with any lines of argument , there is no argument , we are discussing a resignation letter , nothing more , you are the one with the obfuscating reasoning which supplies motives about ” maybe because of this, or that” with zero evidence.
      Secondly I am demanding nothing , LB (Did you forget how to write his name ?),Lennart Bengtsson ,will do as he wishes , if he wishes to reveal in full detail the reasons for his resignation he will, if he prefers to fade back in to the warmista embrace he can do that too. His problem not mine.We are all big enough and ugly enough to stand up for ourselves.
      I see no demands for revelation , I see a lot of sympathy and empathy on this board. I see a lot of gloating on your side , that hahahha shit. Judge not less ye be judged springs to mind. No , just in case you are about to call me a creationist,i am an atheist , that is just a pretty good saying.
      So Billy as much as I would like to tell you ………..but then again why sink to your level.
      If irrefutable science was on your side , you would not have to be trolling around the way you do.I hope it is a reasonable living, but seriously I would rather be working somewhere where you get to say “would you like fries with that?”

      60

    • #
      James Bradley

      William, I recall a similar case raised in Australia about threats towards a global warming proponent, and despite the allegations proving false the propaganda torch was still carried by a sympathetic/apathetic/pathetic media demonising sceptics.

      80

  • #
    ROM

    Well it starts at the very top again amongst the climate Thugges of the CRU Hockey Team.
    And it seems the word is spreading about the evil side of Climate Science and it’s perpetrators.

    From the “National Review on line”

    Science as McCarthyism

    To quote;

    Yesterday, Bengtsson dropped a bombshell. He was resigning from the think tank.
    &
    Especially significant was a tweet from Gavin Schmidt, a leading climate modeler at the NASA Goddard Institute, who for many years worked alongside James Hansen. “Groups perceived to be acting in bad faith should not be surprised that they are toxic within the science community,” Schmidt tweeted. “Changing that requires that they not act in bad faith and not be seen to be acting in bad faith.”

    Evidently the right to practice and discuss climate science should be subject to a faith test. It is an extraordinarily revealing development
    Fears about unbelievers’ polluting the discourse, as some academics put it, illustrate the weakness of climate science: The evidence for harmful anthropogenic global warming is not strong enough to stand up for itself.

    Inadvertently Schmidt’s tweet demonstrates how far climate science has crossed the boundary deep into pseudo-science. Karl Popper observed of the trio of pseudo-sciences prevalent in 1920s Vienna that their followers could explain why non-believers rejected their manifest truths.
    For Marxists, it was because of their class interests. For subscribers to Freudian psychoanalysis and Alfred Adler’s psychology, non-belief was evidence of unanalyzed repressions crying out for treatment. So it is with climate science. Only the pure of heart should be allowed an opinion on it.

    Science regresses if it becomes intolerant of criticism.
    At the beginning of her reign, Queen Elizabeth I of England spoke words of tolerance in an age of religious strife, declaring that she had no intention of making windows into men’s souls.
    Unlike religion, science is not a matter of the heart or of belief. It exists only in what can be demonstrated. In their persecution of an aged colleague who stepped out of line and their call for scientists to be subject to a faith test, 21st-century climate scientists have shown less tolerance than a 16th-century monarch.

    There is something rotten in the state of climate science.

    120

  • #

    > Schmidt tweeted. “Changing that requires that they not act in bad faith and not be seen to be acting in bad faith.”
    > Evidently the right to practice and discuss climate science should be subject to a faith test

    Interesting that neither you, nor the NR, understands the distinction between the common concepts of “good faith” and “bad faith”, and the religious concept of “faith”.

    113

    • #
      PhilJourdan

      Interesting you have no concept of facts or integrity, or how science does not use religion.

      81

    • #
      Geoff Sherrington

      Wiliam,
      They are immaterial concepts.
      You are unable to show that they have relevence.
      This is because they do not.

      81

    • #
      richsrd

      mr Connelly , I am a little new to all this, are you climate topic banned on Wikapedia.

      If so why?

      80

    • #
      richsrd

      mr Connolly , I am a little new to all this, are you climate topic banned on Wikapedia.

      If so why?

      20

      • #
        Rogueelement451

        I think that bears repeating again…..
        mr Connolly , I am a little new to all this, are you climate topic banned on Wikapedia.

        If so why?

        mr Connolly , I am a little new to all this, are you climate topic banned on Wikapedia.

        If so why?

        60

        • #
          PhilJourdan

          In the final analysis, it does not matter. Connolley through his deceit, fraud, and incompetence has rendered Wikipedia a useless source for anything dealing with the subject he attempted to subvert. I am amused at the owners of the site for not giving him an outright ban, but the damage he did was not his alone. They enabled him. And in so doing, destroyed their own credibility.

          Connolley destroyed his own reputation and that of Wikipedia through his dishonesty. I wonder if he thinks his “thought purity” was worth it. I doubt he even to this day understands the term “connolleyed”.

          00

    • #
      richsrd

      Mr Connolley,

      Have you at any time removed information from Wikapedia relating to the MWP.

      90

    • #
      tom0mason

      Mr Connolley you must be the one paid for by Big Oil.
      After all those against the CAGW scam are not.

      40

    • #
      tom0mason

      Evidently the right to practice and discuss climate science should be subject to a faith test. It is an extraordinarily revealing development. Fears about unbelievers’ polluting the discourse, as some academics put it, illustrate the weakness of climate science: The evidence for harmful anthropogenic global warming is not strong enough to stand up for itself.

      http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2014/5/15/the-msm-covers-bengtsson.html

      40

  • #
    PhilJourdan

    It is indeed a sad day for science in general. And it now becomes clear that the 21st century oxymoron is climate science.

    60

  • #
    ROM

    Judith Curry’s comments and she has suffered “Climate McCarthyism” as much as anybody for her change from a full on warmist to a luke warmer at best

    “JC comments.
    I will have much more to write about this in a few days. For now, I will say that I deeply regret that any scientist, particularly such a distinguished scientist as Bengsston, has had to put up with these attacks.
    This past week, we have seen numerous important and enlightening statements made by Bengtsson about the state of climate science and policy, and science and society is richer for this.
    We have also seen a disgraceful display of Climate McCarthyism by climate scientists, which has the potential to do as much harm to climate science as did the Climategate emails. And we have seen the GWPF handle this situation with maturity and dignity

    ___________________________

    So we now add “Climate McCarthyism” and all that implies for those who know the history of the American Senator Joseph R MCCarthy from 1950 to 1956.
    and the Climate Gate debacle and the scientific and personal corruption revealed at the very peak top of the climate science power structure by the release of the Climate Gate e-mails

    I can just remember a small part of that period and how it was reported in our MSM of the times. It was a very bad traumatic period for the American nation until they thoroughly exorcised McCarthy and his McCarthyism
    __________________
    [quoted from Joseph R McCarthy;

    "During the late 1940s and early 1950s, the prospect of communist subversion at home and abroad seemed frighteningly real to many people in the United States. These fears came to define–and, in some cases, corrode–the era’s political culture. For many Americans, the most enduring symbol of this “Red Scare” was Republican Senator Joseph P. McCarthy of Wisconsin. Senator McCarthy spent almost five years trying in vain to expose communists and other left-wing “loyalty risks” in the U.S. government. In the hyper-suspicious atmosphere of the Cold War, insinuations of disloyalty were enough to convince many Americans that their government was packed with traitors and spies. McCarthy’s accusations were so intimidating that few people dared to speak out against him. It was not until he attacked the Army in 1954 that his actions earned him the censure of the U.S. Senate.
    &
    Then came the fatal blow: the decision to broadcast the “Army-McCarthy” hearings on national television. The American people watched as McCarthy intimidated witnesses and offered evasive responses when questioned. When he attacked a young Army lawyer, the Army’s chief counsel thundered, “Have you no sense of decency, sir?” The Army-McCarthy hearings struck many observers as a shameful moment in American politics.

    THE FALL OF JOSEPH MCCARTHY
    By the time the hearings were over, McCarthy had lost most of his allies. The Senate voted to condemn him for his “inexcusable,” “reprehensible,” “vulgar and insulting” conduct “unbecoming a senator.” He kept his job but lost his power, and died in 1957 at the age of 48.
    [ /]

    As always it ends and it never ends well for those attempting to intimidate and enforce their brand of dogma and ideology onto an unwilling and disillusioned people which is where alarmist warmists climate science and it’s promoters are now descending to in public estimation.

    70

  • #
    Gamecock

    “By resigning so publicly and explicitly Bengtsson has made the reasons for his resignation very clear.” – Jo

    There is nothing explicit.

    “I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me.” – Bengtsson

    This tells me nothing. Who is pressuring him? How are they applying pressure/what pressure? Unless he tells us who is doing what, there is nothing noble here. “They are out to get me” just sounds psycho.

    19

    • #
      Tim

      GC:

      If you had followed events closely over some 20 years, you would see the pattern here. This is just one example of many who have not had the resolution to go public, but quietly left their occupation due to intimidation. They are not all psycho’s.

      The real psycho’s are behind the agenda.

      70

      • #
        Gamecock

        “If you had followed events closely”

        Begs the question fallacy.

        09

        • #
          Tim

          Sorry, CG. But I don’t get paid for overtime work and am heading for a good and well deserved sleep.

          Best of luck with your campaign, whatever it may be.

          30

        • #
          Gamecock

          Mr. Tim, instead of addressing my criticism that Dr. Bengtsson tells us nothing except that he is quitting because they are out to get him, you say if I had been paying attention I would know.

          Okay, presumably you have been paying attention for 20 years. Tell us who is doing what to Dr. Bengtsson.

          08

          • #
            garhighway

            Good luck with that.

            01

          • #
            vic g gallus

            I don’t know what has happened to Dr. Bengtsson but I have been persecuted by nasty things said behind my back when I was a scientist, and when I wasn’t. It happens and as everyone has experienced it, I don’t feel the need to give you the details.

            In regards to Climate Science, there is the example of academics who authored for the IPCC and merely strayed from the line that we must reduce emissions drastically now, who were then denounced in public as being like holocaust deniers. There is also the general “all CAGW sceptics are like pedophiles” line trotted out by Robyn Williams on national radio to give you some idea of the bile that comes out of believers.

            20

          • #
            the Griss

            Oh look … no game here.. just a …….

            00

    • #
      Gamecock

      Let me put it another way.

      Two years ago, Australian climate scientists claimed that they were receiving death threats. We had a good laugh. We said, “Prove it.” Their accusations fell apart.

      Now, a climate scientist claims he is under enormous group pressure (which seems lesser than death threats). Do we laugh, and say prove it? NO! The skeptical world wants to believe him. We have a willing suspension of disbelief, just like at the movies. There is risk involved in buying the abridged story. I am just warning skeptics to react to facts, not general accusations.

      It is a fact that Dr. Bengtsson resigned. That’s all we know for a fact. Don’t invest in any more than that.

      10

      • #
        vic g gallus

        Death threats are bit different to social and professional isolation, which he did prove with the threat to no longer be associated with any papers written by Dr. Bengtsson. I also provided examples above of what happens to sceptics (Lomberg, Tol).

        00

  • #

    If you read http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2629171/Climate-change-scientist-claims-forced-new-job-McCarthy-style-witch-hunt-academics-world.html you’ll find:

    > But what made me the most upset was when a colleague from the US resigned as co-author of a paper

    Compare that to:

    > other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc.

    from his original statement. So it seems that LB is having some problems accurately describing what’s happening.

    113

    • #
      Rogueelement451

      Why do you not wait instead of second guessing?
      I think this is a big conspiracy by the deniers , set up a straw man with good credentials , wait until the emails of hate arrive and display the Warmists for the useless shower of ,,snip,, that they are . I,m surprised that you have not realised it was a trap all along . Oh how we shall laugh over our strawberries and cream this summer as we look gaze at your silliness….sarc.(as if i needed to say that)

      70

      • #

        You don’t find the contradiction between LB’s statements at all interesting? Which one do you believe?

        19

        • #
          the Griss

          What contradiction….. only in your enfeebled slimy little agenda driven mind.

          One has withdrawn, other may have said they will.

          40

        • #
          PhilJourdan

          Given your track record, nothing of which you print or publish. As they said in Little big Man, you are the Anti-barometer.

          00

  • #

    Luboš Motl blogs:

    I must say: Welcome to the real world, Lennart Bengtsson. Maybe he didn’t expect this reaction. I surely would. You know, the movement of climate psychopaths belongs among the most aggressive extreme components of the far left and new fascist political movements of our epoch. They have no respect to any moral and human values that would transcend their sick propaganda whatsoever. They’re ready – and eager – to destroy human lives. Some of them are bloody, treacherous beasts of prey dressed up as friends. In the world of Academia, they’re omnipresent. It doesn’t mean that they’re the majority; they are surely not. But their concentration and their aggressiveness is high enough to cripple and poison every large enough research group or institution.

    Much more at the linked article.

    110

    • #
      john robertson

      Weasel Connelly to a word.
      This action by Bengtsson is cunning, a proper low blow to his former colleagues .
      The Gospel according to the Consensus of tiny minds, a world where only the likes of WC self named Stoat, thrive.
      The end is near, only the truly useless idiots are manning the CAGW ramparts.
      This attempted intimidation of Bengtsson is the very best the powers of consensus can do…Oh no.. attacked by an internet weasel.,,His response is very clever, hand back the insult with a fuse.
      The science communicators of course having no ethics, standards or personal integrity , see the action as a surrender…
      Just like they see their failure to convince the taxpaying public, as a communication problem.

      100

  • #
    Ted Swart

    Those who choose to call Bengtsson a “coward” seem to me to be speaking out of turn. Apart from his contention that the pressure on him and his co-researchers was akin to McCarthyism we do not know the full story. Regret and immense sadness — not brash criticism — are surely the right emotions.

    100

    • #
      stephenwv

      In the U.S. the liberals use tactics to shut up the opposition. They name call and sling mud when they lose on the truth of the issues. Another is to employ the “Political Correctness Police” (PC Police for short). They attempt to employ virtual extortion against people who dare to disagree with them. They are assisted in this by the media (the vast majority support and are slanted to the liberals). They attempt to vilify and marginalize as idiotic any opposition. This is a warning to any others to keep their mouths shut if they disagree or they too will be attacked. This is exactly what is being done to Bengtsson.

      Scientists admit they have no clue why the 100,000 year glacial cycle is able to overpower the 41,000 year orbital cycle yet they claim CO2 will overpower mother nature and are mum to explain how their data predictions are unable to match the reality that global warming stopped in 1997. When predictions do not match reality, the “consensus science” relied on is FLAWED. Yet we are forced to support multi trillion dollar economic decisions based on flawed science.

      It is known that the more affluent people become, the larger their CO2 foot print. Thus it makes sense for the government to limit the affluence of the 99% by having expensive energy and higher taxes and fewer jobs and more immigrant job seekers to depress wages. This will help limit affluence and limit CO2 emissions since 99% of the people will be unable to buy much other than basic subsistence. Of course the New World Order Oligarchy of the Government leaders and wealthy families will do just fine.

      20

    • #
      Mattb

      “Those who choose to call Bengtsson a “coward” seem to me to be speaking out of turn”

      rather responding to assertions made out of turn.

      02

  • #
    stephenwv

    In all the discussions on Climate Change the millennial information from Dome Fuji Ice core Studies is ignored or deliberately buried. Here is the proof that the CURRENT average Earth temperature is 3 to 4 degrees COOLER than all the interglacial warmups of the past 340,000 years. And the alarmist nut jobs say we have to stop the next 2 degrees of warmup???? Since when has man ever been able to control mother nature? http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/abrupt/data2.html

    The next fearful warning they will issue to get us to beg them “We can’t have that! PLEASE take more of our money!” will be “The glacier is coming! THE GLACIER IS COMING!” I say let it come. We could use a mile deep glacier over Washington D.C. to freeze U.S. government spending.

    20

  • #
    Eliza

    Im surprised conolley is posting here. Is he chnaging his tune I wonder??
    Anyway University of Queensland is threateningto sue aWUWT blogger look it up. Suggest writing to Premier Qld and Abbot.

    50

  • #
    J Martin

    He should have toughed it out.

    04

  • #
  • #
    Malcolm Hill

    Just who are these people who have made his life so unbearable that he is forced to resign.

    Who are they? Does anyone know? Is there a list?

    Given the history of unethical and incompetent behaviour that is clearly associated with this branch of science, it would be of no surprise that they are all crumpled up and trembling under the stair well …again.

    10

  • #
    pat

    un-believable!

    16 May: Bloomberg: Alex Morales: Climate Change to Hit Sovereign Creditworthiness: S&P
    Global warming will harm sovereign creditworthiness around the world this century, with poorer nations the worst hit, Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services said.
    Climate change is one of two “global mega-trends” alongside aging populations that dominate global economic risks, the agency said today in a report. It identified the most vulnerable nations as Vietnam, Bangladesh and Senegal. Luxembourg, Switzerland and Austria were deemed least at risk.
    Global warming “will put downward pressure on sovereign ratings during the remainder of this century,” S&P analysts led by Moritz Kraemer in Frankfurt wrote. “The degree to which individual countries and societies are going to be affected by warming and changing weather patterns depends largely on actions undertaken by other, often far-away societies.”…
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-05-15/climate-change-to-hit-sovereign-creditworthiness-s-p.html

    20

  • #
  • #
    jim2

    I did write an email to UQ donations. I gave them a piece of my mind.

    Here’s the address: donations@uq.edu.au

    51

  • #
    Ross

    Well I was wrong.

    I did not think the MSM would cover this but The Times ( London) has an article, for a start, as have few other UK papers. But if the The Times have it, it is only a matter of time ( no pun intended) before other major papers in other countries cover it.
    If the journalists link in the call by the Aussie academic, for skeptics to be prosecuted then it would make a great article.

    40

  • #
    pat

    Ross -

    thought i’d add a link to WUWT:

    15 May: WUWT: UK Times headline tomorrow: Scientists in cover-up of ‘damaging’ climate view – full article
    Uh oh, another “climategate” like moment is upon us as the law of unintended consequences kicks in. As Dr. Roger Pielke put it…
    Plus there is an editorial by Dr. Matt Ridley saying “This bullying of climate sceptics must end“….
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/15/uk-times-headline-tomorrow-scientists-in-cover-up-of-damaging-climate-view-full-article/

    60

  • #
    James Bradley

    It seems Mr Connolly isn’t the only one fiddling facts on the MWP. A lot of currently available information on the web is quite recent and is based on post global warming conjecture toeing the global warming line.

    60

  • #
    Streetcred

    Seems like UQ is also getting in on the threatening act:

    MY HUNDREDTH POST CAN’T BE SHOWN

    40

  • #
    ROM

    The following is a post from the Scottish Sceptic [ @ 8.36 pm ] on Judith Curry’s Climate Etc blog post Lennart Bengtsson resigns from the GWPF.
    In thinking about this post from the Scottish Sceptic, it appears he may have hit on the final and quite devastasting outcomes for climate science of the disintegration of the ethics of science in Climate Science in particular, which had started to abandon those ethics in the few years before the devastating revelations of Climate Gate and the collapse of Copenhagen in the closing months of 2009 .

    That abandonment of ethics and scientific integrity have become an open Climate Science sewer which has driven a stake right through what has been one of the great strengths of all of Science down through the modern era.

    What we are witnessing even on Jo’s site here in some of the last posts are the hall marks of a descent from what was an attempt at genuine science even up to Climate Gate and it’s revelations to a deep and quite deliberate corruption of the basic science based principles as applied to Climate Science.
    An abandonment of principles that has now become the defining hallmark of much of Climate Science, and a descent from what was a branch of Science into a faith driven ideology which is now in turn , being rapidly subsumed into an increasingly bankrupt ethical, moral and law ignoring gang type culture.

    Gang cultures invent their own justifications for their existence.

    Gangs and their internal cultures have almost always started off as relatively innocent gatherings of a motley group of individuals who come together out of mutual self interest and find comfort in the protective power of the gang members and so they shift their beliefs to fall into line with the collective gang culture background.

    As gangs always appear as a threat to others there is always a wariness amongst outsiders and a latent hostility, sometimes an active hostility to the gang which is percieved as a threat, real or not, but still percieved as threat by the gang.

    So the gang hardens it’s approach still further and starts to try by any means available, to increase and extend it’s power over all in it’s sphere of influence and increase the collective wealth of it’s members by using threats, both latent and active, to increase it’s power and hold over the vulnerable and unorganised populace in it’s vicinity and in it’s sphere of operations.

    If a gang member breaks with the gang he / she becomes a deep threat to the viability of the gang and it’s total control over it’s members and so any such breakaways or possible opening up of it’s means of operation and it’s internal structures to public gaze makes the gang vulnerable to heavy retribution by those who have suffered at the gangs hands;
    It also threatens the gangs sources of income and wealth and influence and access to power across every sphere where it operates or intends to operate.
    The gang culture believes deep down that it is extremely vulnerable to it’s opponents and enemies so it reacts viciously to any percieved break away which it believes will threaten it’s existence

    Any attempt by a gang insider or gang groupie therefore must be stopped by whatever means available, even brutal means, to prevent any semblance of weakness in the gangs structure as there are too many enemies out there in the gang’s view, [ created by the very actions of the gang itself ] that will take immediate advantage of any percieved weakening of the gang.

    Hence a gang culture with all that implies about threats and fear and the brutality of it’s members and all that implies about anybody who challenges the academic gang structure or who is percieved to be breaking with the gang has to be and must be brutally destroyed before they cause harm to the gang.
    And that has all the hallmarks of what now seems to be becoming the significant characteristics of the university based academically driven global warming industry.

    In the end of course all gangs weaken and are destroyed when they exceed the tolerance limits of the people and the society in which they live and feed on.
    And so it will be also be for the global warming industry’s academic and leftist green gangs and their intolerant thugs.
    __________________

    Quoted from the Scottish Skeptic’s, ”Climate etc” post

    “As I’ve written at Bishop Hill, what we are seeing here is “science” as a community acting to re-enforce social boundaries between the legitimate “insiders” in academia and those outside who are thus deemed “illegitimate”.

    By effectively drawing a line around academia and calling it “science” and persuading all the press, politicians, etc. to see those inside as legitimate to speak on subjects like climate and those outside as therefore illegitimate, it means that no matter how qualified or experience we skeptics are, that we will always be deemed as illegimate.

    However, that only works as long as people believe the boundary around “science” is real and meaningful. What Lennart Bengtsson did, was to show that the boundary is illusionary – that it is made of glass – and by breaking down that boundary he not only legitimised the GWPF, but he also showed that there was no intrinsic reason why academics should be listened to any more than any other groups …. like e.g. skeptics.

    That is why it was so important for those insiders to re-enforce the boundary by this concerted campaign of attacks.

    It’s the same psychology of gang culture. It’s very similar to inter-union demarcation disputes (in this case we skeptics are being told to clear off their lawn because we are dabbling in areas which they consider to be “their” domain).

    And the kind of psychological reaction to “territorial” disputes is as old as when we came down from the trees. Chimpanzees engage in these boundary disputes, gorillas.

    The Chimpanzee behaviour is particularly nasty – combining as a group to target individuals, particularly mothers with young and then devouring the young. This is really what we are seeing, but in a much less extreme version: very ancient behaviour attacking those who break the taboos and cross the boundary to the “enemy” troop.”
    [ / ]

    90

    • #

      I went to the Scottish Skeptic to read this and couldn’t find it. Could you give me the exact url for it? Thanks.
      I found his description of gang dynamics to be very astute: it would explain Islamic Jihadists, LA street gangs, the CAGW crowd and anyone vying for power using group think and little else.

      10

      • #
        ROM

        Jack, Scottish Sceptic’s comment is on Judith Curry’s “Climate etc” Bengtsson thread at 8.36 pm ,
        Takes some scrolling down to find it

        He also posted it on Bishop Hill but I haven’t looked for that same post there

        10

        • #
          ROM

          The first part of my post above the dotted line are my thoughts.
          Scottish Skeptic’s comments are below the dotted line so sorry if there is any confusion.

          10

  • #
    pat

    Taranto at Wall St. Journal weighs in:

    15 May: WSJ: Best of the Web Today: James Taranto: Scientific Authoritarians
    The case for skepticism about climate scientists
    Florida’s Sen. Marco Rubio came under attack this week for refusing to submit to scientific authority…
    Nonscientist Ruth Marcus, writing for the Washington Post, declared that Rubio’s words “undermine his other assertion,” namely “that he is prepared to be president.” Juliet Lapidos, also lacking in scientific expertise, went so far as to assert, in a New York Times blog post, that Rubio had “disqualified himself” from the presidency.
    Of all the silly things written on the subject of global warming, Marcus’s and Lapidos’s offerings are surely among the most recent. Apart from that they’re entirely typical of the genre of global-warmist opinion journalism, in which ignorant journalists taunt politicians for their ignorance but have no argument beyond an appeal to authority. Lapidos: “Does Mr. Rubio think scientists are lying? Or that they don’t know what they’re talking about? Either way, what leads him to believe that the ‘portrait’ of climate change offered by scientists is inaccurate?”
    Appeals to authority aren’t necessarily fallacious, except in the realm of formal deductive logic, where they entail adopting the unfounded premise that the authority is infallible…
    As Michael Gerson puts it in the Washington Post: “Our intuitions are useless here. The only possible answers come from science. And for non-scientists, this requires a modicum of trust in the scientific enterprise.”
    Do you see the subtle problem with Gerson’s formulation? The injunction have trust after tossing aside your intuition is at best a contradiction in terms, at worst a con.
    This columnist is probably as unqualified as Marcus or Lapidos to evaluate the scientific merits of global warmism. But because we distrust climate scientists, we’re with Rubio in being inclined to think it’s a bill of goods…
    Here, from National Review’s Patrick Brennan, is the latest reason to distrust the authority of “consensus” climate scientists:
    “On May 8, Lennart Bengtsson, a Swedish climate scientist and meteorologist, joined the advisory council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation” etc…
    London’s Daily Mail reports that Bengtsson “was also abused on science blogs, with one describing the people who condemned him as ‘respectable’ and that his actions amounted to ‘silliness.’ Another described him as a ‘crybaby.’ “…
    Bengtsson tells the Mail: “Some people like my views, other people don’t, that is the way when it comes to science.” That’s precisely the point. Science is a methodical process of open inquiry. Those who enforce orthodoxies and engage in name-calling aren’t doing science, even if they’re scientists.
    Gerson is correct in observing that a layman’s intuition is of little use in evaluating a scientific proposition. That requires intellect and expertise, and most laymen do not have the latter. But intuition is enough to distinguish an authoritarian from a real authority.
    http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303908804579564082072318084

    BBC has only this so far!

    15 May: BBC The Papers: Andy McFarlane: Climate change and statin scrutiny, health effects of web use and Prince Harry’s pub
    (TIMES FRONT COVER) Caption: Scientific studies are in the news. The Times says research casting doubt on the rate of global warming has been suppressed by scientists because it was “less than helpful” to their cause…
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-27435194

    20

  • #
    pat

    15 May: LATimes: David Horsey: Marco Rubio on climate change: Panderer or pudding head?
    Having thrown in his lot with the deniers of climate change on the weekend, by Tuesday he was tempering his remarks. During an appearance at the National Press Club in Washington, Rubio was asked to cite what “information, reports, studies or otherwise” had led him to conclude human activity played no role in climate shifts. In response, the Republican senator failed to name any source to back up his skepticism and, instead, pulled back a bit from his earlier statement…
    ***A shift away from fossil fuels does not have to “destroy our economy,” as Rubio says, echoing the propaganda of the oil and coal industries. Policies that reduce our CO2 output and build new alternative energy industries would, in fact, push the U.S. to the world economic forefront…
    This isn’t rocket science — but it is science. Apparently, like too many of his fellow conservatives, Rubio would rather not listen to scientists when they say things that contradict the moronic fictions embraced by the hard-core base of the Republican Party or the PR of the fossil fuels industries…
    ***Of course, if he ignores the hard truth and continues to just make things up, he doesn’t really deserve to be president.
    http://www.latimes.com/opinion/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-marco-rubio-on-climate-20140514-story.html

    ***politicians don’t make things up? LOL.

    13 May: WSJ: Biden’s Son, Kerry Family Friend Join Ukrainian Gas Producer’s Board
    By Paul Sonne And James V. Grimaldi
    Vice President Joe Biden’s son and a close friend of Secretary of State John Kerry’s stepson have joined the board of a Ukrainian gas producer controlled by a former top security and energy official for deposed President Viktor Yanukovych.
    The move has attracted attention given Messrs. Biden’s and Kerry’s public roles in diplomacy toward Ukraine, where the U.S. expressed support for pro-Western demonstrators who toppled Mr. Yanukovych’s Kremlin-backed government in February…
    Hunter Biden, a lawyer by training and the younger of the vice president’s two sons, joined the board of directors of Ukrainian gas firm Burisma Holdings Ltd. this month and took on responsibility for the company’s legal unit, according to a statement issued by the closely held gas producer.
    His appointment came a few weeks after Devon Archer —college roommate of the secretary of state’s stepson, H.J. Heinz Co. ketchup heir Christopher Heinz—joined the board to help the gas firm attract U.S. investors, improve its corporate governance and expand its operations. A State Department spokesman declined to comment.
    “The fact that I joined the board of directors is largely based on the company’s will to grow,” Mr. Archer said in an interview with Ukrainian media published on Burisma’s website. “Last year alone witnessed a lot of transformations.” He vowed to make the company more transparent…
    The White House press secretary and the vice president’s office described Hunter Biden’s activities as those of a private citizen, bearing no endorsement of the U.S. government…
    Burisma has now added deep U.S. political connections to its arsenal.
    In addition to being Mr. Heinz’s college roommate at Yale, Mr. Archer was an adviser to Mr. Kerry’s presidential campaign in 2004 and co-chaired his National Finance Committee…etc…
    http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303851804579560542284706288?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702303851804579560542284706288.html

    10

  • #

    University of Qld threatens law suit re Cook paper.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/

    20

  • #
    tom0mason

    With the idea that science is explainable, verifiable, and honest the University of Queensland is threatening Brandon Schollenberger with a legal suit if he continues to examine John Cook’s 97% consensus paper.
    As Brandon said -

    I wanted to talk about the Cook et al data I recently came into possession of. I wanted to talk about the reaction by Cook et al to me having this data. I can’t though. The University of Queensland has threatened to sue me if I do. I understand that may be difficult to believe. I’d like to provide you proof of what I say. I’m afraid I can’t do that either though. If I do, the University of Queensland will sue me.

    40

  • #
    sophocles

    The supreme irony of mass insanity is the conviction that those who do not join the madness, who vainly try to resist, are the truly abnormal.

    Totalitarianism will not be understood until it is realised that few have the strength to be true individuals.

    I salute Professor Bengtsson. It is sad indeed he felt he had to take this action. At least he walks with his head held high, a true individual and a man of integrity who has not compromised his honour.

    (I can’t remember where I found the quote, nor, after thirty-five years, am I sure I have recalled it accurately. Any help with its provenance would be great.)

    20

  • #
    Backslider

    William Connolley. You are a total coward. Unable to cross swords over the simplest things on your blog, you begin deleting my posts and putting me into moderation.

    Gutless coward. You show the whole World how truly pathetic you are.

    20

  • #

    Backslider> you begin deleting my posts

    Not at all. Your posts are still freely available. He’s one, for example: http://stoat-spam.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/fuck-you-wc-you-are-coward.html I’m sure everyone will agree that its important that fine-quality comments like that, enhancing civil debate, full of pertinent facts, are preserved for the future.

    But speaking of cowardice: what is your real name?

    tom0mason> You are the same ‘Stoat’ refered to here? http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/id.7662/pub_detail.asp

    That’s Delingpole’s piece. He’s a bozo. That piece isn’t original; you’re reffing a multiple echo. DP is whinging about my http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/10/12/im-sure-dr-lewis-deserves-some/

    02

    • #
      richsrd

      I am new to all this Mr Connolly but some observations i made whilst looking up effects from climate change,

      I found a lot could be blamed on something else or else nothing to worry about. You will notice i did not reference Wikapedia!!

      lets start with the following,

      1. Heatwaves in the US- worst heatwaves were in the 1930s,
      http://www.epa.gov/climatechan

      2. the fine print of the washington report on climate-
      “There has been no universal trend in the overall extent of drought across the continental U.S. since 1900,” the authors observe. We also learn that “trends in severe storms, including the intensity and frequency of tornadoes, hail, and damaging thunderstorm winds, are uncertain and are being studied intensively.”

      3. Parched US, that is why Prairie grass grew across the US- a drought resistant plant that can even flower during one. Droughts are common and have lasted 100- 150 years over the last 2000 years in the US. Tthe most arid regions in the word have greened by 11 % over the last 30 years.
      http://www.sciencedaily.com/re

      4.FLooding,
      http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs0760
      Effects of Urban Development on Floods
      By C. P. Konrad
      “Over the past century, the United States has become an increasingly urban society. The changes in land use associated with urban development affect flooding in many ways. Removing vegetation and soil, grading the land surface, and constructing drainage networks increase runoff to streams from rainfall and snowmelt. As a result, the peak discharge, volume, and frequency of floods increase in nearby streams…………………”

      5.Sea level rise?- there are 700 dams in the US- 40,000+ worldwide , the effect of the dams is to stop sediment reaching the coastline that has resulted in massive coastal erosion and terrible effects on the marine life, oysters , mussels etc. Land mass rises and sinks, the east coat of the US is sinking.

      6. Alsaka- Since 2000, temperatures in Alaska have dropped by 2.4 degrees Fahrenheit .Scientists reviewed weather reports from 20 climate stations operated by the National Weather Service located across Alaska19 of the 20 weather stations reported falling temperatures. An ocean phenomenon has disrupted a storm regulating system thus allowing cold winter storms to linger longer and bring a deep chill. Local residents have noticed the colder temps but say its no big deal since they are already bundled up for 20-below zero temperatures .
      Glaciers- growing for the first time in 250 years.
      http://www.dailytech.com/Alask

      7. non- indigenous plants have spread across the US crowding out the drought resistant plants creating more fires.
      http://www.rexano.org/Federal_
      Similarly, European cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) is dramatically changing the vegetation and fauna of many natural ecosystems. This annual grass has invaded and spread throughout the shrub–steppe habitat of the Great Basin in Idaho and
      Utah, predisposing the invaded habitat to fires (Kurdila 1995, Vitousek et al. 1996, 1997)

      http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/
      “invasive species cause more fires’

      The Nisqually Glacier on Mount Rainier in Washington State is growing thicker at the rate of 18 feet per year.

      and finally those of you frightened by the Arctic melting , don’t be, Canada has put together a funding budget to build ice breakers for the next 30 years

      10

      • #
        Backslider

        Don’t waste your time with scientific facts Rich. W.C. only believes whatever the high priests at the IPCC feed him:

        You’re denialists, in the sense that all you have in common is denying the correctness of the IPCC view. – W.C.

        10

    • #
      Backslider

      I’m sure everyone will agree that its important that fine-quality comments like that, enhancing civil debate, full of pertinent facts, are preserved for the future.

      Absolutely. Very very pertinent and straight to the point. The quality fits you perfectly.

      But speaking of cowardice: what is your real name?

      I will tell you when we are face to face… oh, wait, no…. you will be running.

      00

  • #
    • #

      > clarification

      Really? It contradicts some of his earlier assertions, but I don’t see how that clarifies anything. For example, “a colleague from the US resigned as co-author”.

      03

      • #
        the Griss

        Hey, The WC needs flushing again.

        What do they say.. if its yellow let it mellow..

        If its brown…

        00

  • #
    Richo

    Hi Mr Connolley

    In reply to your comments last night. QED

    00

  • #
    Andrew McRae

    Speaking of ostracism… a fair warning for Perth tele viewers in 2 hours time. Tonight’s episode of Jonathon Creek on the ABC had one minor character who was a “weather girl” moaning about climate deniers. The BBC have no shame in using Jonathon Creek as a vehicle for their social engineering.
    Not that any of you would ever watch the ABC, just on principle, but if you did tonight you’d see what I was talking about. I could say more but I won’t spoil the ending.

    10

    • #
      JLC

      I’ll be watching Are You Being Served for the umpteenth time. Great viewing from the days when the BBC was a great organisation.

      10

  • #

    Rereke Whakaaro
    May 16, 2014 at 3:18 pm
    Another Graeme,

    “Well, I have also read that the speed of light is affected by gravity, which implies that the Photon has mass. Isn’t that cute? ;-)

    Not according to my understanding…the point is that the photon follows the curve of space so it needs no mass to understand that.

    00

  • #
    Michael S

    Forced? I don’t think so.

    00

  • #
    cwon14

    Some of in the states in particular are peeved by the term; McCarthyism which we realize was included in Dr. Bengsston’s statement. Of course the word is steeped in American left-wing coded lexicon and frankly deceit;

    http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2007-11-07.html

    As time goes on it takes a generic meaning aside from the provocations implied in its partisan U.S. use. It must seem a fine point especially for those outside the U.S. but the behavior we are observing is more or less traditional “political correctness” (PC as we say here in the states) which most here in the U.S. associate to liberal/leftist bullying up to the point of political Orwellianism. AGW is fraught with PC here for a good deal of time. It’s directly linked to “consensus” and conformity in academia.

    It’s somewhat humorous watching a story unfold driven by political orthodox only to add another seemingly unrelated parcel of ancient orthodox in the smearing and slanderous ignorance of the term “McCarthyism” at the same moment. Turns out, Joseph McCarthy had it often right (in broad sense) if not poorly or excessively executed at times and personally flawed as he may have been. There really are enclaves of communist thought, coordination and peer driven political motivation. The relationship to AGW advocacy and globalist socialist ambitions are well recorded.

    So it was an odd choice of metaphor, a term steeped in liberal/left-wing pejorative symbolism describing a process that is so uniquely leftist in modern Western culture; politically correct blackballing and academic repression. Being from Sweden he might be culturally obtuse but somehow
    I suspect it more calculated. Accusing your friends of your common enemies worst imaginable stereotype regardless of how rooted it is in political fantasy. A que or message from Dr. Bengsston that he wants to keep this spat on the collectivist culture reservation, warning off individual rights activists (conservatives in the U.S.) that he might be ticked off but isn’t switching teams over this. Depending on how you take the symbolic use of the phrase McCarthyism he was either spitting at his peers (leftist in personal I.D.) or trying to console them that he doesn’t want to take this too far and they he’s still a global statist cruise liner club cabin member. Perhaps a measure of both at the same time.

    10

  • #

    The Guardian, spending logical fallacies like a drunken sailor manages to be snippy, snotty, wussy and arrogant all in the same gritted teeth tone.

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2014/may/16/murdoch-media-hypes-lone-climate-denial-big-oil

    00

  • #
    el gordo

    “It is astonishing that any journal could have published a paper claiming a 97% climate consensus when on the authors’ own analysis the true consensus was well below 1%,” said Dr. David Legates, a geology professor at the University of Delaware and the study’s lead author….

    ‘Queensland’s legal fight with Schollenberger comes while UK news outlets are reporting that one of the world’s top scientific journals rejected a study from five climate scientists for political reasons.

    ‘the journal Environmental Research Letters rejected the study because it was “harmful” to the climate cause because it “opens the door for oversimplified claims of ‘errors’ and worse from the climate skeptics media side.”

    “The problem we now have in the climate community is that some scientists are mixing up their scientific role with that of a climate activist,” Lennart Bengtsson, a research fellow at the University of Reading, told the Times.’

    http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/16/where-did-97-percent-global-warming-consensus-figure-come-from/#ixzz31vlkpot6

    00

  • #
    the Griss

    Oh well, that explains it..

    It seems that Dr. Lennart Bengtsson’s paper was rejected because it used MEASUREMENTS rather than climate models. !!!

    one reviewer comment that has to make you laugh, (but not too much, we don’t want rib injuries)

    “as the models are calculating true global means…………………………… sorry roflmao !!!!!!

    10

    • #
      the Griss

      and this one should really bring the house down…

      “.[Thus, expecting the models to agree with observed reality is considered to the error of Bengtsson's paper]“

      ……darn

      ……I think I’ve strained an intercostal muscle :-(

      10