Lennart Bengtsson resigns from the GWPF

by Judith Curry

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. – Lennart Bengtsson

The GWPF has announced that Lennart Bengtsson has announced his resignation from the GWPF Advisory Council.  From the press release (which I received via email):

GWPF Voices Shock and Concern at the Extent of Intolerance within the Climate Science Community

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

The text of Bengtsson’s resignation 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

David Henderson’s response:

Dear Professor Bengtsson,

I have just seen your letter to me, resigning from the position which you had accepted just three weeks ago, as a member of the Global Warming Policy Foundation’s Academic Advisory Council.

Your letter came as a surprise and a shock. I greatly regret your decision, and I know that my regret will be shared by all my colleagues on the Council.

Your resignation is not only a sad event for us in the Foundation: it is also a matter of profound and much wider concern. The reactions that you speak of, and which have forced you to reconsider the decision to join us, reveal a degree of intolerance, and a rejection of the principle of open scientific inquiry, which are truly shocking. They are evidence of a situation which the Global Warming Policy Foundation was created to remedy.

In your recent published interview with Marcel Crok, you said that ‘if I cannot stand my own opinions, life will become completely unbearable’. All of us on the Council will feel deep sympathy with you in an ordeal which you should never have had to endure.

With great regret, and all good wishes for the future.

David Henderson, Chairman, GWPF’s Academic Advisory Council

Die Klimazweibel has a post on this, read the comments.  Pielke Jr states:

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:
http://www.denverpost.com/carroll/ci_25395242/extreme-weather-censors

Unfortunately, “climate mccarthyism” is not so far off. It has been practiced for a while:
http://thebreakthrough.org/archive/climate_mccarthyism_part_i_joe

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.

Over the long run, of course, good science will win out and policy will muddle through. In the short term however, the community will continue to do itself a lot of damage.

The climate issue is coming to represent a globalized version of the US abortion debates. I tell my grad students that there is no use for policy analysts in the abortion debates. I should follow my own advice!

Also of interest, Marcel Crok refers to a 1990 interview with Bengtsson, excerpts:

Bengtsson believes that climate experts should not pretend to be more knowledgeable than they really are. ‘In case of the greenhouse effect there is an interaction between media, politics and science. Every group pushes the other groups. Science is under pressure because everyone wants our advice. However, we cannot give the impression that a catastrophe is imminent. The greenhouse effect is a problem that is here to stay for hundreds of years. Climate experts should have the courage to state that we are not yet sure. What is wrong with making that statement clear and loudly?’

Bengtsson thinks that the IPCC has been particularly actuated for political reasons. ‘The IPCC prediction that with a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere the temperature on Earth would rise by two degrees should be taken with a grain of salt.’

‘If you talk to the greenhouse mafia about these observations, they provide some answers, but those are not real. There is no proper support for the claim that the greenhouse effect should already be visible. It is sometimes stated that the Southern Hemisphere is warming. But there are so few observational sites over there that it is very difficult to draw any definitive conclusions about the temperature in the Southern Hemisphere.’

Bengtsson is not the only climate expert who thinks that much of the excitement about the greenhouse effect is undue. Many of his colleagues have been rather uneasy about what happened after they opened Pandora’s box. They have become afraid, now that politicians, camera crews, pressure groups and environmental departments worldwide have thrown themselves at the climate disaster, to openly state that what they have declared may have been a bit premature.

Bengtsson: ‘Many of us feel rather uncomfortable with much of what has been claimed about the greenhouse effect. No one had been talking about it because temperatures had been slightly on the decline during the last 30 years. Only after Jim Hansen of NASA had put the issue back on the agenda after the warm summer of 1988 has it become part of the political agenda. In itself there is no problem with that. Looking hundreds of years ahead the greenhouse effect could become a serious problem. Some policies are obviously a clever thing to do: save energy, become less dependent on oil, those are good ideas. But one cannot oversell the greenhouse effect. There are many environmental problems that are much more urgent like that of the sulphur dioxide in Eastern Europe.’

UPDATE:  GWPF has a new press release on this, with the following statement:

Professor Bengtsson wrote in his resignation letter: “I have been put under such an enormous group pressure from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable. It is a situation that reminds me [of] the time of McCarthy.”

He told The Times that the strongest opposition had come from the US. “It was the climate science community in the US which took this very negatively. I think the reason is the very loaded atmosphere in the US… they would like to do something very substantial about climate change.”

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

 

 

819 responses to “Lennart Bengtsson resigns from the GWPF

  1. I’m only a bird in a gilded cage.
    ===========

    • The Mark Steyn quote about his reasons for taking on the battle against the Mannian Commisars is more apt than ever, now that we are hearing that the most ferocious attacks were coming from the CliSci “community” in the USA.

      This episode puts Judith Curry’s courage and determination in a bright light. Despite the mockery she gets from certain squalid trolls here, what she does is impressive and most laudable.

      Even Mark Steyn, quite familiar with campaigns to enforce political correctness in various fields has been “stunned” by the degree of enforced conformity in climate science. He will now need to revise his last comments to take account of this new episode in rigidly imposed Orthodoxy. Steyn writing BEFORE the news of Bengtsson’s recantation:

      If you’re older, tenured, sufficiently eminent and can stand his acolytes jumping you in the parking lot and taking the hockey stick to you, you’ll acknowledge that his greatest achievement is distinguished mainly for its “misrepresentations” and “falsifications”.

      But, if you’re a younger scientist, you know that, if you cross Mann and the other climate mullahs, there goes tenure, there goes funding, there goes your career: you’ll be cut off like Briffa’s tree rings. I’ve been stunned to learn of the very real fear of retribution that pervades the climate world. That’s why I’m playing this one differently from the Maclean’s case: Dr Mann will be on the witness stand under oath, and the lies that went unchallenged in the Big Climate echo chamber will not prove so easy to get away with. I didn’t seek this battle with this disreputable man. But, when it’s over, I hope that those who work in this field will once again be free to go where the science leads.

      • David Springer

        Yeah boy, I really want to be invited to the group that did this to Lenny.

        /sarc

        Ya listening, Mosher?

    • These actions confirm the demise of an unholy alliance of the world most powerful leaders with those who had a working knowledge of the world’s most powerful source of energy – neutron repulsion in cores of the atoms used in atomic bombs.

      Their goals were noble – to save the world from nuclear annihilation – but they chose the wrong means to achieve those goals – deceit.

      Their misjudgment – in choosing to oppose truth – is a common human error. The damage of that error to society would only be increased by public retaliation, as this alliance collapses before an even more powerful force – truth.

      Thank you, Professor Curry, for your courage and skill in helping bring this nightmare to conclusion.

    • Theo Goodwin

      Skiphil,

      Saint Judith she is.

    • Jim Zuccaro

      In defense of Mark Steyn,

      He has loudly defended the expressions of opinion, and expressed the same opinions, that have got people killed by islamists; defending the cartoons of allah, defending Salmud Rushdie and Theo van Gogh, condemning honor killing, etc.

      The climate debate is a puppy tussle, compared to the real dog fight in this world.

    • Forgiveness and healing from the trauma of Climategate emails may be aided by sharing:

      a.) Aston’s warning on 12 Dec 1922 of the danger of transforming Earth into a star by uncontrollable release of nuclear energy [See page 20, last paragraph of Aston's Nobel Prize Lecture]:

      http://veksler.jinr.ru/becquerel/text/books/aston-lecture.pdf

      b.) Information on uncontrolled chaos in the closing days of WWII

      _ 1. Allied atomic bombs destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki;

      _ 2. Japan exploded an atomic bomb off the east coast of Konan, Korea; http://tinyurl.com/my5zsty

      _ 3. Stalin’s USSR troops captured Japan’s atomic bomb facility and took scientists and technicians to Russia; http://tinyurl.com/n3agdan and

      _ 4. A young nuclear geochemist took secret possession of Japan’s atomic bomb plans . . . http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2170881.stm

      FEAR of death forged the alliance of world leaders and scientists that Climategate emails exposed in Nov 2009.

  2. full disclosure.

    name the emalers

    • Unless the bullies are called out by name for their misbehavior, they will only grow bolder.

    • HR | May 14, 2014 at 8:20 pm |

      Agreed. But also name the supporters.

      http://judithcurry.com/2014/05/03/lennart-bengtsson-speaks-out/ had 374 comments when I checked now; ONE was critical of Dr. Bengtsson, and it was so mild and sudsy as even the most sensitive could barely take offense.

      373 in 374.

      Plus the full support of the entire GWPF.

      And Dr. Bengtsson still chose to withdraw over the vast armada of negativity he’s been exposed to.

      I’m expecting a heck of a stack of email, vile and obnoxious and explicitly threatening, as evidence of Dr. Bengtsson’s martyrdom.

      Because.. I’m dubious of the merits of these claims.

      And really, how terribly insulted you who supported Dr. Bengtsson must feel, if it turns out he walked away over anything less? I mean, does _your_ support count to him for nothing?

      • David Springer

        Thanks for giving more evidence that my assessment of you, that you’re a nasty, diseased little person, was well founded. You suck.

    • michael hart

      What is your point, Bart R?

    • michael hart | May 14, 2014 at 10:26 pm |

      My point is, without evidence, I am firmly skeptical.

      The claims made sound like they demand a police investigation of stalkers.

      Absent evidence, I call sham.

    • Bart R stumbles over the body, but can’t find evidence.
      ========

    • Jim Zuccaro

      Bart R,

      Perform some research here:

      Announce here that you are willing to politely and constructively engage in discussions with the GWPF, and say that cooperative persuasion is what is necessary to convince the non-consensus 3% to agree with the 97% consensus.

      Wait one day.

      Google your moniker (the web name you use here).

      You should be regarded as a hero.

      Thanks,

    • Jim Zuccaro | May 14, 2014 at 11:21 pm |

      But.. I’m not polite.

      I’m not constructive.

      And I have zero interest in fruitlessly attempting to ‘negotiate’ with propagandists, political lobbyist and marketers who have no intention of being persuaded of scientific fact against their monetary interests.

      I have zero interest, too, in my moniker, or in heroism, or in regard.

      But thanks for the advice.

    • Jim Zuccaro

      Bart R,

      “But.. I’m not polite.

      I’m not constructive.

      [etc]”

      Bart. So who are you speaking to? Who’s minds’ do you want to change?

    • Jim Zuccaro | May 15, 2014 at 1:39 am |

      I’m not responsible for minds.

      People are responsible for their own minds, and the changes to them.

      Writing is most often a reflex of the same sort as leads to scratching of itches, and generally for similar causes.

      The GWPF irritates me. It offends like a rash, or a pimple.

      I know it’s not good to scratch at such infectious things, but do you know anyone who never scratches at irritants?

    • Don Monfort

      Barty has dropped all pretenses of respectability. What a little punk.

      • David Springer

        Punk is a worthless person. There’s a different word for someone with negative worth such as Bart… malignant.

    • Jim Zuccaro

      Bart R,

      You are only scratching at itches?

      You are very energetic. But your energy is only because of a mosquito bite? So you are only writing to scratch some small itch?

      You don’t have a bigger purpose?

      Really. Do you want to make a difference? Do you want to change my mind? (If you don’t really care, then you are just scratching some skin that you know that you shouldn’t scratch).

      Thanks,

    • Jim Zuccaro | May 15, 2014 at 2:32 am |

      Looking just at the remarks in this thread, how many respondents show no pretense of politeness, have never been constructive (except in the sense of constructing fallacious arguments), could never persuade with such tract and bile, and show hypocrisy with every line to such degree that one can be safe in concluding they would never be persuaded by science or reason?

      I’ve been around academia a lot of years, far more than most. What Dr. Bengtsson describes in his claims sounds more than fishy, but utterly absurd. Academics — especially in Europe, and especially those with seniority — have impressive protections against outrages, and petty flare ups between colleagues are commonplace enough that one flip-flopping publicly because of some unpleasant friction for a few days or weeks has revealed far more about his own character than that of his detractors..

      IF THERE WERE ANY, WHICH WE HAVE NO EVIDENCE OF FROM DR. BENGTSSON.

      Given the overwhelming cheerleading from GWPF supporters, the groundswell of which has been visible across Dr. Curry’s blogroll, Dr. Bengtsson’s resignation is more than a little suspicious for the reasons given, absent full disclosure of all Dr. Bengtsson’s communications.

      Not that I care to read Dr. Bengtsson’s emails, but I know people here with nothing better to do than read other people’s email.

    • Don Monfort

      Barty the troll awakes with a conspiracy ideation. Something suspicious here. The old Dr. Bengtsson and the CEtc. denizens are in cahoots. You people are shameless. And this kind of foolishness get’s you no closer to meaningful mitigation. You are failing the planet. Dopes.

    • Don Monfort | May 15, 2014 at 10:29 am |

      Far simpler, sockpuppet, is that Dr. Bengtsson was expecting rewards for bringing the prestige of his name to the GWPF, and upon arriving found the rewards too small, and thus withdrew using the cover of some inflated swell of opposition.

      However, the tone of arguments you, sockpuppet, have made repeatedly in the case of others is that you must see every email, note and scrap of code before you believe anything said by an academic. Your double standard in this case betrays that you are simply fastening on it as a way of spinning up yet more propaganda points.

      Which we must, by your own sockpuppetish standards, believe until such time as you give up all your emails and notes for scrutiny.

    • To Bart at 9:55 PM:

      Why should we name Bengtsson’s supporters? So that Joe Romm can publicly slur them? So that those who might work for a US government agency can be negatively dealt with, like Hollywood writers were blacklisted back in the day of McCarthyism?

      If McCarthyism is running rampant, you don’t want to give the character assissins innocent targets. And if you think that this Administration wouldn’t quietly go after employees guilty of incorrect thoughs, it turns out that senior IRS officials knew that right wing groups were being selectively picked out and denied their rights back in 2011:

      http://www.politico.com/story/2013/05/irs-knew-tea-party-targeted-in-2011-91214.html

      I have voted Democrat far more often than I have voted Republican, but when you use the IRS to harm political enemies, it is no different that what Richard Nixon did.

      So, no, don’t name supporters of Bengtsson, not as long as McCarthism is rampant in the climate change community, the Joe Romms of this world, and within the US Government.

      • I have voted Democrat far more often than I have voted Republican, but when you use the IRS to harm political enemies, it is no different that what Richard Nixon did.

        Actually it is different. Nixon only threatened. Obama actually did it. But racism will prevent any action.

    • John | May 15, 2014 at 12:36 pm |

      Wow.

      Just wow.

      Climategate is McCarthyism. The rabid persecution of Michael Mann for just doing Science is McCarthyism. The complaint that some measurement or code or notebook somewhere has not been submitted for perusal is McCarthyism. When the question was asked, “Why should I share my data with you, when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?” it was asked by an innocent scientist of a McCarthyist.

      The GWPF’s standard of conduct, its very mission statement, is on its face McCarthyist: witch hunting for any sign of weakness to exploit, relevant or not, to oppose action on AGW by any means.

      So do I fear being a McCarthyist by calling for a list of Lennart Bengtsson’s supporters alongside his supposed detractors?

      No, I do not, because the absurdity of that claim falling from the lips of people who have been practicing that philosophy unashamedly and at the extremity for so long is utter hypocrisy.

      If Dr. Lennart Bengtsson has felt persecuted for joining a “registered educational charity” — for Pete’s sake, can no one detect TAX FRAUD when it is so blatant in the UK?! — to lobby government to enact laws in direct opposition of the evidence of mainstream science, then really, how is that a surprise to him?

      Was he not aware that he’d be joining the likes of Lords Monckton, Lawson and Ridley in a political enterprise headed by experts in social manipulation like Benny Peiser?

      And really, recall the list of GWPF academic advisors:

      Professor David Henderson (Chairman)
      Adrian Berry
      Sir Samuel Brittan
      Sir Ian Byatt
      Professor Robert Carter
      Professor Vincent Courtillot
      Professor Freeman Dyson
      Christian Gerondeau
      Dr Indur Goklany
      Professor William Happer
      Professor Terence Kealey
      Professor Anthony Kelly
      Professor Deepak Lal
      Professor Richard Lindzen
      Professor Ross McKitrick
      Professor Robert Mendelsohn
      Professor Sir Alan Peacock
      Professor Ian Plimer
      Professor Paul Reiter
      Dr Matt Ridley
      Sir Alan Rudge
      Professor Nir Shaviv
      Professor Philip Stott
      Professor Henrik Svensmark
      Professor Richard Tol
      Dr David Whitehouse

      That’s over two dozen academics, at least a half dozen of which are top rank heavy hitters. It would be sheer academic suicide to conduct a pogrom against Bengtsson such as he describes, for merely joining those ranks.

      So on its face, Bengtsson’s claim is so suspect and remarkable that we must have substantially more than just his version of the story.

    • Bart R
      So you’re default position is to think he’s lying? Interesting.

      He’s at the U. of Reading. Presumably somebody might be able to do a FOIA on him to view the emails he’s likely too much of a gentleman (or scared) to make public himself.

    • HR | May 15, 2014 at 5:28 pm |

      Default?

      No.

      What Dr. Bengtsson has claimed is so out of the ordinary, that on its face it is too dubious to credit, but so spectacular that it must not be out of hand dismissed, either.

      Let’s face it, if any scientist claimed they had to resign over a public matter because of fear for their safety, why wouldn’t everyone have an interest?

    • Bart,

      Congrats on your success at looking like an idiot. Exactly why would Bengtsson make this up? Publish or perish still holds. Hell, how often have we heard the phrase “peer reviewed” science in this debate? People telling you they will pull out from collaberative efforts is a serious threat.

    • Bart,

      The only person who thinks Michael Mann has been rabidly persecuted is Michael Mann. And apparently you.

      Having prior service and family members and friends who have deployed into combat theaters, Mann’s comparing himself to someone who puts themselves into harms way to protect others is rather insulting. What is really ironic is his penchant to attack people who question him on his work. Little Mike is the one most resembling a rabid creature.

    • timg56 | May 15, 2014 at 7:24 pm |

      You’re not the only guy who’s had family in harms’ way.

      However, if you’re a guy who can’t see the one-sidedness of your own views, it’s hardly surprising you think you are.

      One single person resigned as co-author rather than be associated through Dr. Bengtsson with the GWPF. That’s hardly a threat, a pressure tactic, or McCarthyism.

      I doubt you’d co-author a book with Jane Fonda.

    • Don Monfort

      That’s a good one, barty. Dr. B. got nothing to worry about, cause he’s got a couple dozen other heretics on his side. The only problem with your disingenuous BS logic bartski, is that the elderly Dr. B can’t run as fast as the others. He’ll burn first. Well, maybe they get him and Dr. Dyson at the same time. Save on wood and emissions.

    • Don Monfort | May 15, 2014 at 7:51 pm |

      For those who have trouble telling, _that_ would be an example of ad hominem, using a property of the person to argue the case.

      For further example, I might point out Ian Plimer’s unlikely to outrun a 79-year-old Swede.. and I suspect Dyson’s not the slowest of the bunch, either.

    • Don Monfort

      You suffer under the misconception that everyone is arguing a case, barty. I was just ridiculing your two dozen other academics foolishness. I will point out that you admonished my alleged ad hominy and then proceeded to propose an argument about the relative physical abilities of some of the other heretics. You don’t realize what a talent you have for self-parody, bartski.

      You are a sad case. Unlike joshie and the rest of the nameless troll clowns, you appear to be someone who has actually accomplished something in life. Is trolling this board the way you want to go out?

      PS: Little willie is another sad case that comes to mind. He seems to have been a man of substance, before he got mixed up in the climate wars. It’s too bad you boys didn’t hold onto your dignity, as Pekka has.

    • Bart,

      Thanks for the chuckle. You referring to the one-sidedness of one’s view is the proverbial pot calling the kettle black.

      Except in this case I’m more like the stainless steel spoon on the counter.

    • timg56 | May 16, 2014 at 12:52 pm |

      Lack of self-awareness is a key defining quality of those suffering delusion, oh stainless steel spoon.

      I make no effort to be fair, or balanced, except that I show that I can stretch those muscles and actually see more than one side of an argument at a time without becoming hopelessly lost in empathy.

      For example, I can picture myself in the position of a far right wing octogenarian with seniority, who after a lifetime of cushy academic positions wonders if he can find the support of others of like mind for his views about all those thrice-cursed Leftists. I can empathize with such a man’s disappointment on joining, say, the GWPF, to find that they’re nowhere near Right wing enough, too tolerant of others with differences, too willing to listen to Greens and other inferior peoples. Now, caught in a trap, forced to face humiliation because of the weakness and scheming of other, lesser minds, would I not be forced to make a grand statement of how unfair the world has been, to save face, to point out the faults in others for having tricked me to this plight?

      Can you put yourself in the shoes of others half so sympathetically?

  3. Generalissimo Skippy

    See that’s why we need UNtopia – Minnesota. Webby can re-educate them.

  4. In academia there is no protection from your peers. If you don’t tow the line bad things start happening. Your grants get cut off, you lose positions on influential committees for no apparent reason, your adjunct positions are not renewed and your publications aren’t published. Yet when it starts happening everyone will nod and frown and say the proper condolences to your face while they use anonymity to hide their real actions. We like to think scientists are above this kind of petty machination but they aren’t. They are ordinary human beings and the anonymity of peer review makes blacklisting and black balling all too easy. You always tell an academic because of the number of knives in his back.

    • It’s “toe the line”.
      Where do people get this “tow” from? As far as I can recall, “toe” was the way it was always written until a bunch of semi-literates started writing blogs.

      The expression probably comes from ferocious 18th century Royal Navy discipline, with sailors standing to attention with their toes on the line between the planks, while bad tempered officers look for an excuse to have them flogged or keelhauled.

      Doesn’t that sound like the pressures that Bengtsson faced?

    • RoHa

      In the Navy we believed that ‘toe the line’ came from old-style boxing matches where the two pugilists started from a position where both stood on the same line.

    • Jim Zuccaro

      Tom Fuller,

      There are two figurative lines there. The pugilists were separated by a rope ‘line’ that they ‘addressed’ (toed to and faced to), and all ‘blows’ or hits had to be above the waist-high rope ‘line’.

      ‘Toed the line’ to start the fight, and all hits had to be above boards (above the rope, to be fair hits).

    • Quite right tumbleweed. These people in private industry have no idea what it takes to survive in the cutthroat world of academia. People with jobs in the private sector are soft and spoiled. They are used to a pampered and protected corporate lifestyle. None of them would last five minutes if they were to resign from their safe positions in industry and try to get a real job as a tenured academic.

    • Jim Zuccaro

      Ian H,

      What you say.

      I wish I knew what it was like to earn money in the “private industry”.

      I hate that they keep academics away from the gravy-train.

    • Jim Zuccaro

      Toe the line, toed the line, towed the line. This might have been from ‘Toe[s] to the line’

      I can imagine that ‘toes to the line’ could quickly become ‘Towed the line’.

      The ear ‘hearing’ in my imagination can make the connection.

    • The homonym evokes another image of servitude. The language responds to the image.
      ===========

    • David Springer

      Toe the line literally means to assume a designated position i.e. a line on the floor with your toes touching it. Anyone who’s been in the military knows that. Figuratively it usually means a party or group line. For instance toeing the DemocRAT line means supporting abortion, g-a-y marriage, global warming pseudo-science, redistribution of wealth, etc.

    • ‘Tow’ is even more active servitude than ‘Toe’. But I like ‘Toe’, it’s traditional. This discussion is always amusing when it comes up, as it does, often.
      ============

  5. This was the day “science” fell out of “climate science”.

    The alarmists have, however, scored an own goal: they have revealed their bully boy tactics. The next time someone cites the “consensus” they will be countered with the fact that the “consensus” wa manufactured at the end of a metaphorical baseball bat.

    I hope we do find out who the bullies are. They need to be exposed, vilified and then shunned by anyone who has the slightest scientific or moral integrity.

    • pokerguy (aka al neipris)

      Uh huh. Their bully boy tactics as you put it have been on display since climate-gate. If anything, it’s just going to get worse before it…what? Gets better? Maybe, maybe not.

      I see violence in the offing. And not the metaphorical kind you mention above. It strikes me as virtually inevitable that some lunatic will pick up a gun and take a shot at some climate “denier” for the “good of the planet.”

    • More drama! A shoot out at the ACO2 corral.

      Go to google scholar. You’ll find his co-authors. Ask them if they terrorized Lennart.

      Saying some like (I don’t like the GWPF and I will not write any more papers with you) is not terror. It’s something a co-author would have every right to do. He’s not endangering Lennart’s job in any way at all.

      He said US. Schwartz is from the US. Who likes him? A commenter hear named Steven, who often comments very interesting things on ocean heat transport. Capt. D likes Schwartz. Schwartz writes papers that are problematic for true believers. Has not lost his job; publishes lots of papers; is a very respected scientist.

    • Pathetic, JCH.
      ==========

    • Truly a pathetic post JCH.

    • There is nothing pathetic about it.

      You’re a lyncher. That is pathetic.

      The new article linked to today clarifies Bengtsson’s resignation circumstance, and it bolsters my initial hunch. This was all about a US co-author who works for the US government who dropped out, and that co-author had every right to do so, and anybody who thinks he does not have that right is, well, fantastically misguided.

    • Don Monfort

      We seem to be missing most of our usual gang of alarmist trolls this morning. Must have stayed up late last night celebrating the coal mine disaster in Turkey.

    • It would be useful if Bengtsson were able to be more explicit about the pressure he received, but bullies seem to be on both sides. Michael Mann has apparently received death threats as well as political persecution from Cuccinelli, at least.

      It’s definitely a very charged environment for climate scientists to be working in, whichever hypothesis they favor.

      • There was no “persecution”. There was an investigation. Those who claim the former are merely being hysterical as they can produce no evidence of any persecution. Or even Harassment.

  6. Pathetic,and at the same time, sadly, so predictable. Heretics have always been severely punished by the true believers. Diversity of thought isn’t politically correct. Voltaire has been dead for some time….

    • bob droege

      It’s not about heresy and belief, it’s about science, and what can be established as factual.

  7. Senator McCarthy was a lightweight compared to these Global Warmng Mullahs.

    p.s. Whatever one thinks of him, McCarthy was going after actual spies commiting espionage on behalf of the USSR. Michael Mann & company are treating harmless thoughtful people as though they are far lower than spies for the USSR at the height of the Cold War. But then, to Commisars enforcing climate orthodoxy, any serious dissent or disobedience must be worse than espionage.

  8. Global warming is all about politics. Period. The actions of the left-wing climate alarmists in the US are no different than the actions of their political activist brethren. If you disagree with Obama and his friends, you are slandered as bitter, mean-spirited, hate-filled, racist, sexist, homophobic terrorists who want to deny medical care to the poor, starve kids, kill seniors, and rape the environment. The slanders are constant. And it goes well beyond slander. Speak out and the IRS, EPA, DOJ, BATF will descend on you to use the awesome power of the government to harass, abuse and intimidate you.

    What happened to Bengtsson is just like what happened to conservatives filing for 501(c) 4, or the nuns who complained about Obamacare, or the Koch brothers. If you don’t toe the left’s political line, they will use anything and everything available to them no matter how immoral in their efforts to destroy you.

    They are morally retarded indeed.

    • No pause in that trend.
      ========

    • At CA, Nick Stokes wrote: “He took a political stand which was unpopular with his colleagues.”

      Politics, it’s all about the politics. Bengtsson thought he was a scientist doing science, but Nick’s alarmist friends let him know forcefully that science has nothing to do with it. All politics, all the time. Of course, politics is the process by which we decide who gets to have a monopoly on violence.

    • Yup. Much better to suck up to Barry like Buffet and GE.

    • Walt Allensworth

      stan –

      +1000

      They have no morals whatsoever.

    • jim2, I recently read a Buffet quote (in print, can’t put my hand on it) that the only reason he invested in wind power was the handsome subsidies, drop those and he’s out of there.

  9. nottawa rafter

    How can anyone be surprised by these tactics. I see it every day on TV , in print and on the internet. It is despicable and beyond defense. The cause may be important but to what price. Regimes in other countries and in other centuries felt their cause was also important. Thankfully they are no longer with us.

    • What tactics? His colleagues setting him straight on the reputation of the organization he had just joined?

      I wonder how you (and Judith) felt about all the threats other climate scientists have been getting, back years ago.

      • David Springer

        Yeah speak up, pudgy. Don’t let that box of donuts distract you from defending the means of consensus building in global warming pseudo-science.

    • ..and one of the main culprits in applying these tactics [ Appell ] shows up on cue – good timing David.

    • yes, many can remember how dishonest David Appell & company were about the alleged “death threats” that turned out not to exist….

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/28/paging-david-appell-and-nick-stokes-again-time-to-fess-up-and-apologize/

      and in any case, random angry emails from the great unwashed do not compare to an aggressive campaign by allegedly professional scientist to ostracize and ruin one of their own.

    • I think David just called Professor Lennart Bengtsson a fool in need of being set straight. “Setting him Straight”? sounds a bit homophobic, David.

    • nottawa rafter

      Apple So much group pressure he was concerned for his health. The fact you seem to be condoning this pressure says everything anyone needs to know about you.

    • Curious George

      David Appell: I hope no one ever sets you straight against your will. It is frequently done in concentration camps, where a very persuasive equipment is available.

    • ceresco kid

      David-

      You are rationalizing and not very well at that. All you have to do is look around any day, any place at your climate cataclysmic comrades to see this stuff goes on. And after that look in the mirror. It won’t be long before the warmists will be starting burn the book clubs. To keep warm, of course.

    • David Appell, it is regrettable that anybody on either side feels threatened. But it happens on both sides, and obviously the threats from the climate community have more teeth. Teeth not to be ignored.

    • Tyrannis rex jaws, and maladapted to the modern intellectual climate.
      ===========

    • Roberto -

      ==> “David Appell, it is regrettable that anybody on either side feels threatened.”

      I agree. But it is also meaningful to know what was the cause behind someone feeling threatened before making analogies to concentration camps and N*zis and McCarthyism.

      What was it that made Bengtsson feel threatened? Was it because colleagues told him that they felt his stance had damaging implications globally, and thus would not co-author with him in the future? Was it because he got emails threatening him harm? What was the nature of the threats?

    • The herd of alarmists goes over the cliff, seeking evidence. It was under their feet all the time.
      ========================

    • Jim Zuccaro

      David Appel,

      “I wonder how you (and Judith) felt about all the threats other climate scientists have been getting, back years ago.”

      The same threats as are made now? So that is justification?

    • This is what Appell and others in the Klimate Konsensus Konspircacy call a death threat:

      I wouldn’t piss on Michael Mann if he were on fire.

    • Joshua and David Appel, your line of reasoning is really repugnant. The gentleman felt threatened. Isn’t that enough? To great fanfare he joined the GWPF. Do you think he would leave shortly afterwards without cause?

      As someone who has been on the receiving end of such harassment, including phone calls to my employer at the time, I know that this happens. You can sit here on this thread and try to pretend it doesn’t happen, but a whole lot of people know that you’re full of it.

      Prall and Schneider targeted the victims. Lewandowsky provided the labels. Peter Gleick showed you could get away with murder. So this is not a surprise. But it is still repugnant.

    • Jim Zuccaro

      charles the moderator,

      said

      ” This is what Appell and others in the Klimate Konsensus Konspircacy call a death threat:

      I wouldn’t piss on Michael Mann if he were on fire.”

      That can’t be true…? (is it?)

    • Jim Zuccaro

      Tom Fuller’

      “Peter Gleick showed you could get away with murder. So this is not a surprise. But it is still repugnant.”

      Peter Gleick did not murder anyone.

      There was no murder in that situation. Other words are better.

    • David Appell, it is no fun on either side facing a howling mob hurling nothing but abuse, mockery, threats, and calls for pure loyalty to “our side” and “the good guys”. Seriously, in person it is like a physical shock to the system.

      I would hope that nobody who posts here is carried away into such traps and saying such things (hint, hint). However amusing it may be, it doesn’t help any chances for dialogue.

    • David takes a few tokes from his global warming bong and joins the thread.

      What is it about this topic that causes you to lose all good sense?

    • Joshua and David Appel, your line of reasoning is really repugnant. The gentleman felt threatened. Isn’t that enough? …

      Ask the supporters of Tawana Brawley.

    • JCH,

    • Skiphil wrote:
      yes, many can remember how dishonest David Appell & company were about the alleged “death threats” that turned out not to exist….

      “Death Threat Captured on Video”
      http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2011/07/death-threat-captured-on-video.html

  10. 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.

    • They maintain their 97% by deciding who gets counted. Their numbers are getting smaller, but their 97% will never decline.

      If they can kick the people out who start to disagree, fast enough, their % may even go up.

      Their numbers are getting smaller, so it should get easier to find, and kick out, those who become skeptic.

      More and more Scientists and Engineers and Metoroglists and People of every background, who are skeptic, AND HAVE BEEN SKEPTIC, and have not spoken out yet, will increasingly join THOSE OF US who believe the People in the Consensus Kingdom, all, have “NO CLOTHES ON”

    • The people who are skeptic of Consensus Alarmist “so called” Science, should and, I think, will, speak out.

  11. In this 2013 paper, Bengtsson finds a lower bound for equilibrium climate sensitivity of 2.0 +/- 0.5 C:

    “Determination of a lower bound on Earth’s climate sensitivity,”
    Lennart Bengtsson and Stephen E. Schwartz, Tellus B 2013
    http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/33753/1/Climate_Sensitivity.pdf

    • David Appell,
      Which makes it that much more striking that your Climate Commisars are trying to destroy him. He doesn’t seem to have some cavernous scientific distance from the mainstream but maybe thinks that uncertainties are larger and/or policy recommendations have been badly formulated??

      For that he must be ostracized from the “community” of climate science he has served and worked in effectively for 50+ years!!

    • What is your point?

    • Mark Silbert

      David Appell doesn’t have a point.

      It’s just a waffle intended to side step the issue at hand here: Bengtsson’s resignation from GWPF.

      Max

    • Stephen E. Schwartz is one of Bengtsson’s co-authors. He writes exactly what he wants to write. His papers have angered warmists. He hasn’t lost his job. He continues to publish a lot of very sound papers.

      I rather doubt he would be part of a disgraceful arm twisting. I would not be surprised if he objects to aspects of the GWPF, but I do not know that for sure.

      So who is he talking about, and why no evidence? It’s just his assertion.

    • No, the climate community is not ostracizing him, they are taking him back.

      He is one of ours, you can’t have him.

    • In this 2013 paper, Bengtsson finds a lower bound for equilibrium climate sensitivity of 2.0 +/- 0.5 C:

      Which is why, if you actually believed what you say about science, having him at the GWPF would have been a good thing. He would have been a voice supporting the importance of AGW.

      Instead, at the slightest hint he might stray from the orthodoxy, you declared that he needed to be “set straight” and was hounded, not for what he said, but rather for associating with the wrong sort of people.

      Guilt by association is the opposite of science. You have just proven yourself completely uninterested in scientific inquiry.

      Not that it comes as a surprise.

    • It’s the Global Warming POLICY Foundation. Policy debate would still be relevant and necessary even if the sensitivity was unanimously agreed to be 5.0 +/- 0.01 C.

    • JCT:

      “So who is he talking about, and why no evidence? It’s just his assertion.”

      Not only his assertion. His assertion backed up by his reputation.

      You believe him, or you don’t. I don’t know what camp you fit into.

      If you do not believe him, then you have to have a compelling reason for why such a dramatic statement and action would be taken by Bengtsson.

      If you do believe him, then why cast doubt on his statements?

      Neutral is not believable, given your post.

      So, JCT, which camp, and why are you demanding proof?

  12. Climate McCarthyism is a very accurate term. It is truly a sad day when Lysenkoism claims another victim. Perhaps more saddening is the fact that the scientist sheep do not realize how they are destroying their own credibility, not the skepticism which is critical in any scientific field.

    Climate Science is being made an oxymoron by those who have rejected science for their cause.

  13. Jim Cripwell

    Will the same sort of pressure be brought to bear on the people who are advising the APS on CAGW?

  14. There is nothing new here with this story…

    Again, many good scientists and professionals have had their careers harmed over the last two decades by this agenda based movement called AGW. We must acknowledge and remember them at moments like this…

  15. Pingback: Climate Fascists | Jay Currie

  16. This is beyond disgraceful. It makes one feel debased by even trying to debate the issues with such misanthropes. Let’s hear from a few alarmists that abhor this type of behavior and mistreatment of an icon.

    I’m listening!!

    • You’ll get only crickets. Alarmists are people of the left. It’s all about the politics. Ethics and morality are defined as that which aids the lust for political power. Nothing else.

      “There are no morals in politics.”

    • ‘This is beyond disgraceful. It makes one feel debased by even trying to debate the issues with such misanthropes. Let’s hear from a few alarmists that abhor this type of behavior and mistreatment of an icon.’

      Would Tweets like these fall into that category:

      “Groups perceived to be acting in bad faith should not be surprised that they are toxic within the science community. Changing that… (1/2)”

      “… requires that they not act in bad faith and not be seen to be acting in bad faith. (2/2)”
      @ClimateOfGavin!

      Hear ye the gospel and bow before it!

    • Abhor what behavior? Is there an email we can read? Maybe the hacker can find the evidence.

    • Sorry you’re so bitter, JCH, such that you’ve stopped up your ears to the testimony.
      ========

    • –> “This is beyond disgraceful. ”

      Wow. Beyond disgraceful. That’s bad. Can you describe what it was, at least in some detail, just what it was that was beyond disgraceful? Help me to share in your outrage.

    • ceresco kid

      JCH

      Ohh please. The man said he was pressured and he was concerned about his health and safety. You have stuck your head in the sand and thrown in dissembling on top of it. Accept that this kind of bullying and strong arm methods are done every day by the warmists.

    • Praising the meat before passing the Lord.
      =============

    • Did you believe the climate scientists who said they had received death threats? LMAO. Somebody asked for evidence. Perfectly reasonable.

      Oh pleezzz. Lol.

    • –> “Ohh please. The man said he was pressured and he was concerned about his health and safety. You have stuck your head in the sand and thrown in dissembling on top of it. Accept that this kind of bullying and strong arm methods are done every day by the warmists.”

      First, bullying, while certainly something I think is condemnable, is a far cry from McCarthyism. Second, I think that before throwing around terms like “McCarthyism,” we should know what kinds of pressures he was subjected to.

      Did colleagues write him letters, and say that they felt that his stance had dangerous global implications, and therefore did not want to continue collaborating with him?

      As to whether that is bullying, is perhaps debatable. But it certainly is not the equivalent of McCarthyism.

      So if you have some evidence of him being subjected to something tantamount to McCarthyism, tell me so I can join you in your outrage. What is your evidence?

      I have known people who’s lives were affected by McCarthyism. I have known people who’s lives were affected by Nazism. I think these kinds of accusations should not be made lightly. To do so, IMO, is exploitative of serious issues.

    • –> “Ohh please. The man said he was pressured and he was concerned about his health and safety. You have stuck your head in the sand and thrown in dissembling on top of it. Accept that this kind of bullying and strong arm methods are done every day by the warmists.”

      First, bullying, while certainly something I think is condemnable, is a far cry from McCarthyism. Second, I think that before throwing around terms like “McCarthyism,” we should know what kinds of pressures he was subjected to.

      Did colleagues write him letters, and say that they felt that his stance had dangerous global implications, and therefore did not want to continue collaborating with him?

      As to whether that is bullying, is perhaps debatable. But it certainly is not the equivalent of McCarthyism.

      So if you have some evidence of him being subjected to something tantamount to McCarthyism, tell me so I can join you in your outrage. What is your evidence?

      I have known people who’s lives were affected by McCarthyism. I have known people who’s lives were affected by Naz*sm. I think these kinds of accusations should not be made lightly. To do so, IMO, is exploitative of serious issues.

    • Honey, this is a serious issue.
      =========

    • Not only that, whose lives were affected also.

    • Why is it serious, kim?

      Because Bengtsson was upset?

      Ok. That makes it serious.

      Does that make it serious at the level of McCarthyism? Of terror? Of Goebbels?

      Do tell, what makes it serious at the level of McCarthyism? Of terror? Of Goebbels?

      I have been asking for a while now. I’ve asked a number of people.

      No answers.

      Not a one.

      A number of responses.

      But no answers.

      Why is that?

    • ‘This’ is climate, in all its scientific, political, social, financial, moral and the rest of its many-branched ramifications. So you wanna act dumb.

      Go ahead, what else is new.
      =======

    • George Turner

      Joshua, McCarthyism had little to do with McCarthy until he joined a campaign that was already long in progress and used professional shunning, warnings of investigations, and other tactics to unearth Soviet agents and their fellow travelers – who were actually bent on helping the Soviets win the Cold War.

      In this case, the pressure and threats are aimed at an scientist who disagrees with political orthodoxy. If anything, it is much closer to Lysenkoism than McCarthyism, since McCarthyism dealt politically with political beliefs, whereas Lysenkoism cast a political pall across every scientific field in the East Bloc. Any scientist who disagreed with Lysenko’s theories (even scientists in unrelated fields), faced a loss of status and position, investigations, and even a trip to the gulag.

    • Don Monfort

      The little troop of troll baboons demand evidence from the intimidated victim. Hey, maybe the Koch bros. paid him to make this up. If he really was under assault from the climate alarmist mob, he would point fingers and name names. In other words, jump from the frying pan into the fire.

    • Joshua, please go straight to hell. I was working for a solar power company and my boss got two phone calls saying I didn’t belong in the renewable energy industry because of the book I wrote with Mosh about Climategate. A bit player with a self-published book that supported climate science while criticizing some idiots who didn’t know stats or ethics. If they did that to me, I am happy to surmise they have bigger sticks to wave at name players.

    • I guess Joshua and his pals won’t be satisfied unless the victim provides a detailed description of the rape with accompanying photos, preferably in HD.

    • Lennart brought it on himself. No way should he wear dresses so skimpy.
      ==============

    • JCH

      RE: “Did you believe the climate scientists who said they had received death threats? LMAO. Somebody asked for evidence. Perfectly reasonable.”

      Did you bother to check into the details of the alleged death threats? Calling the material death threats is analogeous to calling a kitten a saber toothed tiger.

    • Josh,

      I’ll agree that you have a point about the labelling – i.e. McCarthyism. But it a point at the fringe, not the core of this discussion. Do you really want to weigh in on the side that thinks this episode involving Bengtsson is nothing worth noting?

    • That was the point. Waiting for evidence of water in the pool before jumping off the high dive.

    • tim -

      –> “Do you really want to weigh in on the side that thinks this episode involving Bengtsson is nothing worth noting?”

      I have weighed in saying something quite different (although folks like Fuller and many other of my much beloved “skeptics” can’t bother to actually read harder before attacking me). That Bengtsson would write a letter such as he did, merits “concern,” IMO.

      As for the incident being worth noting, I think that it is worth noting for a number of reasons:

      (1) It may well be evidence of tribalism among “realists” ( high likelihood there).

      (2) It may well be evidence of reprehensible behavior by “realists” (I have yet to see any actual evidence of such. What we may know is that at least one scientist indicated that based on Bengtsson’s association with the GWPF, he would no longer co-author with him. I don’t consider that to be reprehensible).

      (3) It is clearly evidence of tribalism among “skeptics” who have made all sorts of absurd analogies to justify the need for victimization. I think it is telling that “skeptics” will stoop to exploiting “reign’s of terror,” or McCarthyism, or fundamentalist Islam, or Stalinism, or Lysenkoism, or Naz*sm, etc., to score points in the climate wars.

      (4) It is clearly evidence of Judith and the gang being willing to throw out any attempt at establishing consistent criteria to use in evaluating the climate wars – for example, criteria related to tribalism, or activism, or vitriol, or free speech.

      It is worth noting that it is same ol’ same ol’.

    • Tribalism – that’s your argument? With the usual bit of Judith pony tail pulling.

      You don’t need much more information than the fact of a distinguished scientist receiving what appears to be considerable negative feedback on a decision he made. Feedback within a very short period of time. That alone should raise questions. Yet you would rather beat your same drum and in doing some convince yourself that there is nothing of interest here.

    • Show me evidence of reprehensible behavior, tim, and I’ll join you in your outrage.

      But I won’t join you in “alarmist” drama-queening in the name of self-victimization.

      Sorry. I just don’t roll that way.

    • Anyway, I’m out. My sponsor from Troll’s Anonymous called – and he’s pissed.

      Have a nice time drama-queening boyz. It was nice while it lasted, but I’ll have to catch you on my next release from rehab.

      Man, step #8 (making amends to people I’ve harmed) is going to be a b*tch).

    • Don Monfort

      Joshie rolls with a silly wobble and always veers hard left. Very predictable. And extremely tedious.

    • Josh,

      my outrage?

      Exactly what outrage is that? Once again you show that honest discourse is not your aim. I haven’t shown the least bit of outrage. In fact, I agreed with you on the point of over reacting. My divergence was with the centrality of that point to the core issue. And that issue is how some people reacted to Bengtssons association with a particular group. And that reaction is disturbing. How disturbing can be a matter of opinion. Dr Bengtsson could have overreacted. He could be a drama queen. He could be weak willed. Any of these factors could be reasons to dilute the level of disturbing. But lacking evidence of any of these conditions the reasonable person takes Dr Bengtssons comments at face value.

      So assuming we are reasonable, there is still a fairly wide spectrum in how disturbing one might find this. One can withhold judgment until they know more and counsel others to do likewise. Or they can feel outage. Neither is out of line. Trying to say that nothing is disturbing or trying to distract attention away from the whole affair, particularly when you fabricate stuff, marks you as dishonest.

  17. Danley Wolfe

    What is going on now including this latest on Bengtsson has the “feel” of an organized propaganda campaign the likes of which harken back to Dr Goebbels and Willi Münzenberg. In this re, Alan Leisher head of AAAS issued a letter to members yesterday (also asking for donations) which said inter alia:

    [quote] Based on the evidence, about 97% of climate scientists agree that human-caused climate change is happening. Yet a large fraction of this country’s population and policymakers can’t seem to accept the fact that the climate is changing. It’s time to shift the debate from whether human-caused climate change is happening to what we can do about it.

    We need to make it clear that scientists believe that doing nothing now is extremely dangerous and could result in abrupt, unpredictable, and potentially irreversible changes with highly damaging impacts on future generations. And we need your help.

    As you may know, AAAS recently launched a new initiative to expand the dialogue on the risks associated with climate change. At the heart of the initiative is the “What We Know” report, an assessment of current climate science and impacts that emphasizes the need to understand and recognize possible high-risk scenarios.

    But to have the greatest impact, we must do more than issue a report. We must continue to get the word out about the urgency of this issue. Will you join us?

    As members of the science community, we need to change the conversation from whether the earth is warming to just how we are going to work together to alter the course our planet is on. We have to reach out to the American people, to policymakers, and even to other countries about what science is showing about the dangers of climate change and the severe outcomes that could occur through inaction or continued resistance to change.

    I count at least seven statements by Leisher that do not represent the views of qualified critics with bone fides including those of participants in Curry’s blog. I would counter that those of us who do not blindly accept the climate protagonists story line to restructure the world economy need to do more than yelp on blogs like Curry’s. There needs to be more of a grass roots and intelligent response to get our views across!

    • It’s more like a bunch of chimpanzees hooting, howling and thrashing about the trees intimidating one of their number who has “defected” to the other side. When he gets back to the “troop”, the big cheese will beat him up in front of all the rest of the troop, he’ll submit gracefully to the treatment, and then once its been established that troop members don’t ever cross over into the territory of the other troop — he’ll be left alone.

    • Based on the evidence, about 97% of climate scientists agree that human-caused climate change is happening.

      97% of the Climate Science Consensus Clique do agree. Their numbers are getting much smaller every day. They do keep up the percentage by kicking our all who express doubt. 97% if a small group that is getting rapidly much smaller will lose this disagreement.

      Mother Earth is on the Skeptic Side and her vote counts more. It has “not warmed” counts a lot more than “well, it should have warmed.” It will warm, someday, we hope, because we are betting everything you have on that.

    • name withheld

      Interesting that you mention Leshner, he was at my corporation within the last few years, giving a general talk to our technical community on science encouragement and communication. He then brought up climate change he challenged any deniers in the audience to speak-up, saying that he can usually find one or two. When nobody took the bait, he went on too describe people who disagreed with him on the topic as kooks and tin-foil hat types (i’m paraphrasing).
      I didn’t speak up. I consider myself a lukewarmer. I knew he wasn’t looking for a fair or nuanced discussion, he was looking to out someone. I didn’t want to be blacklisted. There are many true believers in my company who would not accept any view in conflict with the cause. In addition we are poised to profit from many of the supposed climate solutions. So I kept my mouth shut. He came across as a real bully in my opinion.

    • Danley Wolfe

      What is being done is same as Russians and Chinese communists brainwashing and rehabilitation of people that do not follow the line. There are two layers of this going on in climate science. 1) the consensus as we learned from the East Anglia – gate emails punish scientists by barring them from publishing in scientific journals; 2) in the US right now there is a coordinated effort led by the Obama administration to use all the usual tactics to surround and conquer + flooding the country with public opinion campaigns (check the front page NYT daily feature articles on climate change related). Robert Lifton studied American prisoners of war extensively and outlined the kind of process (torture) that Bengtsson and others like him should expect to encounter
      :
      1. Assault on identity
      2.The Establishment of Guilt
      3.The Self-betrayal
      4.Breaking point: Total Conflict and the Basic Fear
      5.Leniency and Opportunity
      6.The Compulsion to confess
      7.The Channeling of guilt
      8.Re-education: Logical Dishonoring
      9.Progress and harmony
      10.Final confession
      11.Rebirth
      12.Release

      Communists describe this as “the art and science of asserting and maintaining dominion over the thoughts and loyalties of individuals, officers, bureaus, and masses, and the effecting of the conquest of enemy nations through ‘mental healing’.” http://www.alor.org/Library/BrainWashing.htm

  18. Divine right rer rule
    and decide who is in and
    who is goddam out

    H/t Church of Climatology..

  19. While the resignation of Lennart Bengtsson from the GWPF is regrettable, I think our hostess has summed it up very succinctly:

    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.

    Looking forward to her new post on this topic.

    Max

  20. Sic Semper Tyrannis.
    =================

  21. Climate science might qualify for science again if it breaks up in to lots smaller pieces.

    I mean, the pieces might. The whole thing won’t.

    • Humpty-Dumpty sat on a wall,
      Humpty-Dumpty had a great fall;
      All the King’s horses and all the King’s men
      Couldn’t put Humpty together again.
      ====================

    • There are now two strands to “science” – the one is a social construct or a name for a group of people. You enter this group by submitting yourself (or through a paper) to the power and authority of the group. Once you’ve past this initiation you are then a member of the “science” tribe and can call yourself a “scientist” and expect any journalist or politicians to humbly accept any daft comment you care to make (which doesn’t contract a more senior member of the tribe).

      Then there is what I call “Skeptic science” – that is science based on popperism, evidence, hypothesis testing, – all the good stuff we skeptics call “science”.

      You can draw a venn diagram of “science” and “skeptic science”. Everyone who calls themselves a scientist is in the area of “science” – but only some of them are “skeptic scientists” – and indeed, there are many outside academia or otherwise areas known as “science” who are “skeptic scientists”.

      Lennart Bengtsson was mostly certainly in the overlapping area. Someone like Mann, is clearly known as a “scientist”, but is clearly not a skeptic scientist.

  22. I wonder if anyone here, who is so concerned about the “Climate McCarthyism” can actually tell me what sorts of abuse Bengtsson was subjected to. Why, more specifically, would he have been unable to continue his normal work if he had remained affiliated with the GWPF? Why would have caused him to fear for his health and safety?

    What kind of abuse was he subjected to that equates with McCarthyism?

    I mean surely, Judith and my much beloved “skeptics” must know in some detail. Was it that he received nasty emails? Some sort of threats? Perhaps he was accused of fraud? Torturing data? Do, pray tell, what do you know about the abuse he was subjected to? Surely, as “skeptics,” you must know, because surely a skeptical person would expect to have some information about the abuse he received before claiming that his treatment was tantamount to McCarthyism.

    I mean surely, you must know. Right? Otherwise one might think that as with holocaust denial, and hand-wringing about a loss of free speech, you are holding a serious issue like McCarthyism hostage to score points in the climate wars.

    Step forward my much concerned friends and tell me some details about the abuse, so I can join you in our outrage.

    • Heh, Bengston’s scream isn’t enough for Joshua, he wants details of the torture.
      ==============

    • Is it torture, kim? How do you know? Tell me so that I can share in your outrage.

    • I agree Joshua. It’s not like his freedom, career and reputation are threatened. The guy had to know he would stir up a stool-storm. He couldn’t stand the heat and left the kitchen. The accompanying drama borders on hysterical.

      • David Springer

        Got a sock in your potty mouth, Horwad? C’mon. Be yourself so I can get your ass banned again.

    • I actually don’t know, Howard. I wouldn’t assume that if he suffered some sort of abuse, he deserved it.

      I would like to know, however, what kinds of abuse he was subjected to that earns so many certain descriptions from self-described “skeptics.”

      “Terror?” The man was terrorized? He was subjected to treatment that is the equivalent of those who were attacked by McCarthy? Really? I have known people that were targeted by McCarthy. Hundreds of pages of FBI files.

      Is this really something that justifies these kinds of characterizations, or is this just more climate wars drama-queening?

      I will wait for someone to give me something solid. If it isn’t forthcoming, than these folks should be ashamed to call themselves “skeptics,” IMO.

    • Reny Madigan

      Do you also insist on lifting the lid at a closed casket funeral just to see what the corpse looks like?

      Odd kind of voyeurism there, son.

    • Kim kertain. And as usual, not even remotely sceptikal.

    • -> “Do you also insist on lifting the lid at a closed casket funeral just to see what the corpse looks like?”

      Well, actually, no I don’t? How is that analogous to asking people on what basis they start throwing around phrases like McCarthyism, or “terror,” or “beyond disgraceful,” or Nazi analogies?

      What information do you have about the abuse he suffered? Tell me, so that I can join you in your outrage. Or is it that you actually don’t know? If it is the later, do you call yourself a “skeptic?”

    • Well, actually, no I don’t? How is that analogous to asking people on what basis they start throwing around phrases like McCarthyism, or “terror,” or “beyond disgraceful,” or Goebbles analogies?

      What information do you have about the abuse he suffered? Tell me, so that I can join you in your outrage. Or is it that you actually don’t know? If it is the later, do you call yourself a “skeptic?”

    • I agree that McCarthyism shouldn’t be thrown around. McCarthy was absolutely on the right track. Had he been allowed to continue, we in the US probably wouldn’t have had to suffer under the sorry excuse for a President we now have.

    • George Turner

      Ironically, Joshua shouts that it isn’t McCarthyism and then demands we name names.

    • Funny. A representative of a group that labels Skeptics as ‘Deniers’ wants skepticism, a group that can’t provide actual evidence wants evidence.

      Would he be happy with a computer model predicting catastrophic academic harassment as imminent unless we act now?

      At least that might be considered consistent…

    • Jim Zuccaro

      Joshua,

      I agree with your comment about McCarthyisn. McCarthyism is very much too pejorative a word to use in the climate debate. The criticism of someone is nothing like the firing, and the black-listing, that person. I can’t see that anyone in the climate science world has had that happen to them.

    • “I wonder if anyone here, who is so concerned about the “Climate McCarthyism” can actually tell me what sorts of abuse Bengtsson was subjected to.”

      I wonder how many, who now ask for evidence of foul play, had also asked for similar evidence from Hansen when he claimed to be ubduly silenced.

      Perhaps FoMD can tell a wondering world, eh Climate etc readers?

    • Josh, please list the “warmers” who have lost their jobs by pushing the hockey stick and CAGW……now list the other side.

      • Alarmist rule #1 – Always accuse your enemies of your own sins to deflect attention from yours.

        Evidence: Mann’s statements about Dr. Curry, and his current law suits.
        Evidence: David Appell’s claims of death threats – none found.
        Evidence: Peter Glieck’s fraud with Heartland documents.

        etc., etc.

    • I have no idea what Dr. Bengtsson was subjected to but it must have been pretty bad; otherwise, why would he react that way? Do you have some reason to doubt the treatment he received was truly menacing? And if he has overreacted, or fabricated events, why haven’t those who did contact him taken issue with his characterization of their correspondence and set the record straight? You don’t believe it because you don’t want to believe it.

    • The dare not, the cowards, all. And they’re horrified at the fools pushing disclosure here.
      ===========

    • Joshua, you want to know what kinds of abuse Bengtsson was subjected to. What we have is Bengtsson’s words:

      “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 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.”

      Bengtsson apparently is highly regarded (or was) in meteorological circles. So we can chose to believe what he says, or not.

      I chose to believe him. It certainly fits with my own, much more limited experiences if you happen to respond, even among friends, with a politically incorrect response. I wrote about that experience on Judith’s blog about 10 months ago. That is part of why I believe Bengtsson, that normally intelligent people are acting like zombies, attacking friends when they actually haven’t read the science. It is very tribal right now.

    • Well, Joshua. You have to read his email he sent around. People, colleagues from all over the world abused him by telling him their opinions what they think about his political statement and decision to join the GWPF. And some told him, they don’t want to be affiliated with him on the same paper anymore. He was being tortured with free speech. As we know that is equivalent to McCarthyism.

      • @jan

        McCarthyism
        Mc·Car·thy·ism
        [muh-kahr-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA
        noun
        1. the practice of making accusations of disloyalty, especially of pro-Communist activity, in many instances unsupported by proof or based on slight, doubtful, or irrelevant evidence.
        2. the practice of making unfair allegations or using unfair investigative techniques, especially in order to restrict dissent or political criticism.

        learn it.

    • John -

      –> “I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. ”

      Yes, if you see no limit to what will happen, it would make sense to be reminded of McCarthy.

      But let’s take one particularly prominent aspect of McCarthyism:

      People where forced to answer questions about their beliefs before government and private industry panels. What do you see in the climate wars that is similar? Perhaps when someone like Judith or RPJr. or John Christy, are invited before government panels to express their views voluntarily? Do you not see a fundamental difference?

      Here’s another particularly prominent aspect of McCarthyism:

      On November 25, 1947 (the day after the House of Representatives approved citations of contempt for the Hollywood Ten), Eric Johnston, President of the Motion Picture Association of America, issued a press release on behalf of the heads of the major studios that came to be referred to as the Waldorf Statement. This statement announced the firing of the Hollywood Ten and stated: “We will not knowingly employ a Communist or a member of any party or group which advocates the overthrow of the government of the United States[...]” This marked the beginning of the Hollywood blacklist. In spite of the fact that hundreds would be denied employment, the studios, producers and other employers did not publicly admit that a blacklist existed.
      At this time, private loyalty-review boards and anti-communist investigators began to appear to fill a growing demand among certain industries to certify that their employees were above reproach. Companies that were concerned about the sensitivity of their business, or who, like the entertainment industry, felt particularly vulnerable to public opinion made use of these private services. For a fee, these teams would investigate employees and question them about their politics and affiliations. At such hearings, the subject would usually not have a right to the presence of an attorney, and as with HUAC, the interviewee might be asked to defend himself against accusations without being allowed to cross-examine the accuser. These agencies would keep cross-referenced lists of leftist organizations, publications, rallies, charities and the like, as well as lists of individuals who were known or suspected communists. Books such as Red Channels and newsletters such as Counterattack and Confidential Information were published to keep track of communist and leftist organizations and individuals.[35] Insofar as the various blacklists of McCarthyism were actual physical lists, they were created and maintained by these private organizations.

      What do you see today that resembles that aspect?

      Here’s another prominent aspect of McCarthyism:

      Efforts to protect the United States from the perceived threat of Communist subversion were particularly enabled by several federal laws. The Alien Registration Act or Smith Act of 1940 made it a criminal offense for anyone to “knowingly or willfully advocate, abet, advise or teach the [...] desirability or propriety of overthrowing the Government of the United States or of any State by force or violence, or for anyone to organize any association which teaches, advises or encourages such an overthrow, or for anyone to become a member of or to affiliate with any such association”. Hundreds of Communists and others were prosecuted under this law between 1941 and 1957. Eleven leaders of the Communist Party were convicted under the Smith Act in 1949 in the Foley Square trial. Ten defendants were given sentences of five years and the eleventh was sentenced to three years. The defense attorneys were cited for contempt of court and given prison sentences.[36] In 1951, twenty-three other leaders of the party were indicted, including Elizabeth Gurley Flynn, a founding member of the American Civil Liberties Union. Many were convicted on the basis of testimony that was later admitted to be false.[37] By 1957, 140 leaders and members of the Communist Party had been charged under the law, of whom 93 were convicted.[38]
      The McCarran Internal Security Act, which became law in 1950, has been described by scholar Ellen Schrecker as “the McCarthy era’s only important piece of legislation”[39] (the Smith Act technically predated McCarthyism). However, the McCarran Act had no real effect beyond legal harassment. It required the registration of Communist organizations with the U.S. Attorney General and established the Subversive Activities Control Board to investigate possible Communist-action and Communist-front organizations so they could be required to register. Due to numerous hearings, delays and appeals, the act was never enforced, even with regard to the Communist Party of the United States itself, and the major provisions of the act were found to be unconstitutional in 1965 and 1967.[40] In 1952, the Immigration and Nationality, or McCarran-Walter, Act was passed. This law allowed the government to deport immigrants or naturalized citizens engaged in subversive activities and also to bar suspected subversives from entering the country.
      The Communist Control Act of 1954 was passed with overwhelming support in both houses of Congress after very little debate. Jointly drafted by Republican John Marshall Butler and Democrat Hubert Humphrey, the law was an extension of the Internal Security Act of 1950, and sought to outlaw the Communist Party by declaring that the party, as well as “Communist-Infiltrated Organizations” were “not entitled to any of the rights, privileges, and immunities attendant upon legal bodies”. The Communist Control Act never had any significant effect, and was perhaps most notable for the odd mix of liberals and conservatives among its supporters. It was successfully applied only twice: in 1954 it was used to prevent Communist Party members from appearing on the New Jersey state ballot, and in 1960 it was cited to deny the CPUSA recognition as an employer under New York State’s unemployment compensation system. The New York Post called the act “a monstrosity”, “a wretched repudiation of democratic principles,” while The Nation accused Democratic liberals of a “neurotic, election-year anxiety to escape the charge of being ‘soft on Communism’ even at the expense of sacrificing constitutional rights.”[41]

      What do you see happening today that resembles that aspect of McCarthyism.

      It is possible to protest against tribalism in science without exploiting disgraceful events of the past through analogies. And certainly, even beyond that, it is a stain on the label of skeptic to do so without any effen evidence.

    • Joshua, it isn’t that complicated. When people think of McCarthyism, they think of people being blacklisted.

      My mother was very liberal, but was never involved in anything that would get her called before any body of any sort. Nonetheless, many people actually stopped talking and socializing with her, simply because she was outspoken in her views at a time when such views became suspect. She was in fact ostracized among a number of people for her political beliefs.

      What happened to my mother was painful, but not anything like what happened with Bengtsson, who suffered both personally and professionally, and in a very public way.

      When people use the word McCarthyism, they aren’t drawing an exact parallel with events 65 years ago; they are saying that someone has been blacklisted in ways that are harmful both to a number of individuals (those that are blacklisted) and to society (because it speaks of huge intolerance and of dark suspicions of those with a different viewpoint).

      I’ll add to this so that you understand where I’m coming from: Rush Limbaugh also blacklists entire groups of people with his remarks and beliefs, he is a large part of our political intolerance in the US. But just because he does it, doesn’t mean we should. Someone needs to uphold standards of tolerance of dissent, and the ability to be agreeable while disagreeing. Bengtsson’s example shows that the left (climate alarmists) are acting very much like Limbaugh.

    • John at 8:41 pm

      Not at all.

      The features of McCarthyism was the prevelance of anonymous sources making allegations were even the details of the alleged transgressions were often not revelaed to the accused.

      B. took a public position, and it seems that some of his colleagues have,very openly, told him very directly, what they think about that.

      Calling this “McCarthyism” is some of the dumbest gibberish the ‘skeptics’ have ever produced – which is saying something.

    • Evidence: David Appell’s claims of death threats – none found.

      “Death Threat Captured on Video”
      http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2011/07/death-threat-captured-on-video.html

  23. And now we know who: US climatologists, which of course begins with our modelers at Columbia, Penn State, MIT, Texas at Austin, Colorado, U C Berkeley, etc. and a cadre of influence peddlers, Silicone Valley billionaires and their lobbyists in Washington DC.

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

    This is the pressure to remove non-compliant editors and dissuade reviewers. This was McCarthysim then as it is now. The only thing that kept the viciousness hidden was the acquiescence of the “Silent Majortiy” into keeping their mouths shut. The heinous crimes of slander from the House of UnAmerican Activities was supported by liberal notables like John F. Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey amongst others.

    Today our McCarthyites in Climate Science are in the public eye as well as working behind the scenes to impose what can be popularly characterized as the “black hand” of Robert Louis Stevenson’s Treasure Island fame.

    I regard these characters, these climate scientists who have the insider’s ear in Washington DC and the President of the United States, as despicable individuals.

    I am awaiting the Margaret Chase Smith’s and Edward R. Morrow’s of modern times to speak against this, what has become, the Reign of Terror with all its horrific attributes.

    For our hostess; even a tenured position is no longer safe as College and University Presidents, their Boards and Provosts are not immune to political hacks and those who populate the press, news media, consultants and talking heads with their vitriol.

    Obviously I have my dander up.

    • RiH008 -

      –> “Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc.”

      Is that it? Withdrawal of support and withdrawal from joint authorship is the equivalent of McCarthyism? Is that your argument? Really?

    • –> “…Reign of Terror with all its horrific attributes.”

      Reign of terror? Really? That does sound bad. What kind of terror was Bengtsson subjected to?

    • Joshua

      “Reign of Terror with all its horrific attributes.” Is the general.

      “Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc.” Is the specific.

      The Reign of Terror began long before Climategate email release with the specific pressure to get fired journal editors who allowed the publication of research that ran contrary to the insider’s clique’s orthodoxy.

      The specifics to Bengtsson are the people who were collaborators on research grants and research in particular who felt compelled to withdraw their specific activity with regards to Bengtsson as he had taken a position which may criticize the orthodoxy.

      These are powerful behind the scenes behaviors. These people who did this are vile individuals. The demonstrate a lack of integrity. Their work is suspect. What data did they leave out that was not supportive of their views?

      Your questions show you have little insight and a profound ignorance of history of Climate Catastrophe and its similarity to McCarthyism.

    • RiH008 -

      –> “The specifics to Bengtsson are the people who were collaborators on research grants and research in particular who felt compelled to withdraw their specific activity with regards to Bengtsson as he had taken a position which may criticize the orthodoxy. ”

      So if a colleague of mind does something that I think has dangerous implications on a global scale, and as a result, I write to them and tell them my opinion, and tell them that I won’t continue to collaborate with them in the future, and you think that is tantamount to dragging them before HUAC, blacklisting them, and imprisoning them based on sometimes completely unsubstantiated claims about their political beliefs?

      Do you call yourself a skeptic?

    • Joshua

      Vile people do vile things which reflects upon their integrity and the work they do.

      You ask:

      “So if a colleague of mind does something that I think has dangerous implications on a global scale,”

      If you were to act alone. If you were a person of integrity. If you were a collaborator on a specific project and someone on the team would join a group with which you didn’t agree, you have defiled you honor, integrity and pledge to the project because you have judge others, not on their work product, but so ephemeral a straw, you didn’t like what the other may say. You have judged, just as McCarthy judged as fellow travelers those with whom you had previously worked and encouraged, you have denigrated them for their thoughts. Your opinion of what constitutes “dangerous implications” reads directly from the HUAC transcript. You lack a historical perspective, much the pity. You are destine to follow in the path of those whom history has judged as wanting. Your arrogance to believe you know what constitutes “dangerous implications on a global scale.” OMG

    • Let us not fergit
      the road ter consensus
      is paved with the bodies
      of the heretics of yester-year.

      http://edge.org/conversation/heretical-thoughts-about-science-and-society

    • Beth

      Thank you for the link allowing me to re-read Freeman Dyson’s 2007 essay on striving to be a heretic.

      I am sure others in diverse fields of endeavor concur with the spirit of the song popularized by Frank Sinatra: doing it “My Way.”

      Mandating a consensus in a complex and emerging science like climate reflects the bureaucratic mindset of government thinking and problem solving. There is a reason why “heretic” has a religious connotation.

  24. Western academia’s bizarre science of global warming has made the all too easy journey from superstition and ignorance to a war on reason.

  25. Sad story, another illustration of the bad twist of the climate debate.
    Pr Bengtsson can be sure that the scientific community around the world is, broadly speaking, on his side.

  26. Bob Ludwick

    I am shocked, SHOCKED, that Climate Science is evan aware of The Rules, never mind the obvious fact that it is so clearly experienced in applying them.

    At least Professor Bengtsson is now familiar with Rules 5 and 12, up close and personal.

  27. Judith writes:

    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.

    Hear! Hear!

    When one considers the 5th (and/or lower) rate “alliances” such as that revealed by Mann and Lewandowski last November – and the unfathomable silence of “the community” in the face thereof – compared to the totally out of proportion pressures that were obviously exerted on Bengtsson whose own views (since at least 1990) have not really changed in the intervening years is (IMHO) indicative of a huge credibility chasm (i.e. well beyond a mere gap!) in the “community”.

    It also strongly suggests to me that, with sincere apologies to Shakespeare, to coin a phrase, “Something is rotten in the state of climate science”.

    To be honest, I had never heard of Bengtsson prior to his now short-lived “defection”. But that’s my problem, not his. Like many, I suspect, I certainly would have hoped that the courage of his obviously longstanding convictions would have helped him to, well, sustain his alliance with the GWPF.

    But one can never really know how the pressures that have been brought to bear on an individual can affect him or her and the choices s/he might make. However, he is of a different generation and culture; so I do not fault him for the choice he has made.

    My only hope would be that one day, in the not too distant future, he will be able to summon the courage to speak out, again – and name the names of those whose (IMHO) unconscionable actions have obviously adversely affected his choices.

    • –> ” But one can never really know how the pressures that have been brought to bear on an individual can affect him or her and the choices s/he might make. …”

      True. But one can really know what those pressures were. You seem mightily outraged. Surely, then, you must know what those pressures were. Please, tell me so I can share in your outrage.

    • Please, tell me so I can share in your outrage.

      Yawn! Alas, it seems that the J-troll has embarked on yet another of his inane campaigns to divert and disrupt intelligent discussion amongst the grown-ups here.

      What a silly, juvenile, attention-seeking twit he has turned himself into, eh?!

    • Yet he asked a rational question as to what kind of abuse Bengsston received that caused him to resign.

      Or is it all smoke and mirrors.

      I think all the drama queens need to put up or shut up.

      Answer the question.

      • David Springer

        Would it really matter to you, Bob? Would you shun the defenders of your faith for blackballing a defector?

    • J-troll fan, bob droege wrote: May 14, 2014 at 11:31 pm

      Answer the question.

      Oooh, look folks! Another little dictator-wannabe heard from! But that aside …

      Mr. Droege, apart from your appalling lack of manners, what is it that makes you so sure that I – or anyone, for that matter – am obliged to “answer” the J-troll’s attention-seeking and diversionary “questions”?

      In the absence of any rational explanation, grown-up readers may well conclude that both you and he are handicapped by inadequate reading comprehension skills. It is most unfortunate that – handicapped or not – you seem to share an inability to comprehend, for example:

      The reactions that you speak of, and which have forced you to reconsider the decision to join us, reveal a degree of intolerance, and a rejection of the principle of open scientific inquiry, which are truly shocking. They are evidence of a situation which the Global Warming Policy Foundation was created to remedy.

      In your recent published interview with Marcel Crok, you said that ‘if I cannot stand my own opinions, life will become completely unbearable’. All of us on the Council will feel deep sympathy with you in an ordeal which you should never have had to endure. [emphasis added -hro]

      Then again, Mr. Droege, perhaps you, and/or your stalwart little J-troll buddy in customary attention-seeking diversionary mode, would care to enlighten us as to the appropriate formulation for letters of resignation – and/or responses thereto.

    • Hillary: Joshua is expressing the traditional male adult view that does not get the vapors over an emotional incident that has all the indicators for a hysterical over-wrought reaction to hard-ball politics. Please stand aside, sweetie ;^) while the men ask the hard objective questions to figure out what is actually going on.

    • In published journals we have a thing called peer review, I suppose it might be understood that this is to prevent the publication of unfounded speculation and opinion in the journals.

      GWPF is both the Global Warming Policy Foundation as well as a new entity, the Global Warming Policy Forum, the split being designed to allow an unfettered disinformation campaign without the need to disclose sources of funding.

      All we have heard so far about the terror attack campaign against Bengtsson is that at least one of his collaborators does not want to co-author with him due to his alignment with the GWPF. Looks to me like integrity means something and I applaud the peer pressure put on Bengtsson not to associate with the climate disinformation squad.

      Furthermore, I found this gem on my daily blog reading

      “Decent people all over the world should find all conceivable legal tools to physically liquidate ultra extreme fascists who authored the disgusting article on this blog and who have intimidated the Swedish scientist. Apologizing the reaction by the climate fascists is unforgivable and as far as I can say, William Connolley and the cripple on this blog should get a death penalty.”

      Pretty vial stuff, remember to keep your computer logins secure lest someone post in your name. Not playing the but mommy they did it too game cause I have not seen the first foul.

      Now I ask for evidence that Bengtsson has received similar treatment.

      I see Marc Anthony giving his famous speech while Ceasar and I are having a few drinks.

    • Howard –

      Gotta say, I don’t see what gender has to do with it. This thread is a Godwin-a-polooza (a quick perusal returns analogies to McCarthy – the most favored – and we are told was a “lightweight” in comparison), Goebbels, Sandinistas, Nazis, terrorism, Stalinism, Russian and Chinese communists, Lysenkoism, etc., full of pearl-clutching, drama-queening, and hand-wringing from fainting couches about events that apparently not one can even describe in any detail, and only a tiny % has been done by females.

      I highly doubt that you’d ever find a thread so full of “alarmism” in a vacuum of information from a group of females. Females are generally more practical than that.

      I notice that still, not one person has come up with any details about what is so “alarming.”

      This thread is a prize-winning example of why I love “skeptics” as much as I do. Seriously hilarious.

    • Howard –

      Gotta say, I don’t see what gender has to do with it. This thread is a Godwin-a-polooza (a quick perusal returns analogies to McCarthy – the most favored – and we are told was a “lightweight” in comparison), Goebbels, Sandinistas, Naz*s, terrorism, Stalinism, Russian and Chinese communists, Lysenkoism, etc., full of pearl-clutching, drama-queening, and hand-wringing from fainting couches about events that apparently not one can even describe in any detail, and only a tiny % has been done by females.

      I highly doubt that you’d ever find a thread so full of “alarmism” in a vacuum of information from a group of females. Females are generally more practical than that.

      I notice that still, not one person has come up with any details about what is so “alarming.”

      This thread is a prize-winning example of why I love “skeptics” as much as I do. Seriously hilarious.

  28. Remember Hal Lewis?

    It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS [American Physical Society] before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist. So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it.

    ~Hal Lewis (UCSB Professor Emeritus writing APS President Curtis G. Callan, Jr., Princeton University, 6 October 2010)

  29. It’s a peculiar situation. Bengtsson has done the bidding of the climate politburo, but by acknowledging that it was their disgraceful behaviour that forced him to do so, he has all but vitiated their efforts. Unless the gauleiters of climate orthodoxy are so suffused with hubris that they see no injury to their cause from his revelations, Bengtsson would appear to have burned not one, but two sets of bridges. Someone’s being very naive here.

    Judith, why not write to the GWPF offering to take his place?

  30. Martyr complex much?

  31. Those who rejoice at the torment wrack their souls tortuously.
    ====================

    • Lol. Are you ever genuine? Praying for those poor abandoned Russians. Making hay that day; making hay today.

    • The Russian ETF, RSX, is the best performer in my portfolio lately. Like Putin or not, he will be sure Russia gets its share. Unlike Barry, who bows to anything that moves and gives away other peoples money as he draws yet another “red line.” What a loser.

    • Rejoicing at the ant ridden, worm boweled picnic; it itches, and it stinks.
      ============

  32. If you can’t prove global warming via science, do it by intimidation. IMO, this incident just proves they don’t have a case for catastrophic global warming. These idjiots are just trying to get more of the taxpayers money. Idjiots.

  33. Richard Hill

    Is not the actual objective to diminish the credibility of the GWPF itself?
    Bengtsson himself is just by-catch.

  34. People ought to recall Matt Ridley’s surprise at finding himself made a science heretic himself, as explained in Ridley’s lecture on “Science Heresy (October 31, 2011), at the Royal Society of Arts in Edinburgh. (In print at Bishop Hill, via podcast at rsa.org, and long excerpt at Jonova.)

    His point: good science that does not fall prey to pseudoscience NEEDS its heretics to keep it honest, and in order to not succumb to the universal human foible of confirmation bias.

    L’affaire Bengtsson reminds us all of the enormous power of institutionalized science Orthodoxy, as well as the great courage required to oppose it.

    Thank you, Dr Curry.

    • David L. Hagen

      Politically biasing scientific peer review & publication
      Bengtsson now exposes explicit corruption of the scientific method by using political bias to prevent publication of his paper. James Delingpole reports:
      Climate-McCarthyism-The scandal grows

      when submitted for publication in the leading journal Environmental Research Letters, [Bengtsson's] paper failed the peer-review process and was rejected. One of the peer-reviewers reportedly wrote:
      ‘It is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of “errors” and worse from the climate sceptics media side.’
      This, Prof Bengtsson told the Times, was “utterly unacceptable” and “an indication of how science is gradually being influenced by political views.”
      He added:
      ‘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.’ . . .
      The word is out: establishment climate science is little more than pseudo-science, propped up by bullying political activists, but unsupported by real-world data.

  35. pokerguy (aka al neipris)

    Wonderful to see the alarmists beclowning themselves in such typical fashion. Did anyone here have a scintillas of doubt that would be the case Even Joshua’s taken a break from his recent stay at troll rehab to weigh in with his usual inanities…

    Is there something about climate alarmism that once embraced, makes a person nasty? Or is personal nastiness some sort of sina qua non for the embrace itself?

    Because it really seems to be the case that a person can’t make the considered judgment that global warming is the most important problem of our age requiring trillions of dollars in mitigation, and still remain a decent human being.

    • pokerguy (aka al neipris)

      sorry “sine”

    • PG calling somebody nasty. Precious.

    • pokerguy (aka al neipris)

      Yes, perhaps, but I still think they’re pretty good rhetorical questions..

    • JCH holds nasty cards up his sleeves, in his pants pockets and behind his ears. Fold, me boy, fold.
      =========

    • With kim it’s always one sided. He’s not genuine.

      There is not a nasty bone in my body. Still married to my college sweetheart. Two great kids. One matched to one of the three best teaching hospitals in the world. I take care of my 90-year-old mother, who requires 24-and-7 care. Three years running, not a single day off.

      Up yours, kim.

    • I’m at a table across the room. I’d need a long spoon to sup yours.
      =============

    • No, David, both true, and they are among the only reasons I listen to him at all.
      ===========

    • JCH,

      There is quite a bit of over egging the discussion here and I haven’t seen anything to persuade me that you not having a nasty bone is untrue.

      But I have seen evidence that you have several bones which are true believers. They probably are not idiot bones, but their faith makes them appear to be.

    • Bad Andrew

      “I take care of my 90-year-old mother, who requires 24-and-7 care.”

      Then how is it you waste yours and our time here?

      Stick Granny in front of the TV?

      Andrew

  36. It amuses me that so much of Venona is undecrypted, yet we have storytelling like the recent West debacle. Have we a Dead Sea Scrolls-like situation? It seems that the thrust isn’t so much about historical revisionism, but rather sustenance of a modern day narrative.

    Don’t bother trying to decrypt that; it’s a bit opaque to me too. That’s my story and I’m stickin’ to it.
    ==================

  37. It didn’t look like a good match in the first place. He said he regretted the politicization and so joined a political group(?). I think he sees now why this was not good for someone who isn’t into the politics of the issue and just wants to talk about the science. GWPF is not the place for that, because it taints your credentials as a non-partisan scientist. It was his mistake to so publicly take sides in partisan politics, and he has now realized it was better not to. This was about the GWPF, not him. He might have been naive. Reading the rhetoric around the subject, he could have figured out he was jumping into hot water, but it seems he didn’t take the temperature and was genuinely surprised by how hot this subject is at the political level, especially in the US. In Europe organizations like GWPF don’t count for much, because the skeptical view has almost no sway in the corridors of power, so maybe he thought it was harmless, but in the US it means a lot more, being a well funded part of the Republican platform not to support any climate policies.

    • And if his co-authors want to remain apolitical they would every right to stop publishing with the guy. That is not McCarthyism. It’s not terrorism. It’s exercising professional judgement, which is their right.

      The content of these communications is unknown. They could easily be completely free of nasty.

    • Heh, who needs the communications of the parties? The words of the thrilled alarmists are damning enough.
      ===========

    • Yeah, scientists have no business acting as advocates!

      Oh…wait…uhhh…we mean….

    • There are some scientists, and it is a minority, who want to be advocates, and everyone knows know who they are because it is a deliberately public position. Seems Bengtsson didn’t want to be after all, but maybe he thought about it for a while, or didn’t realize that joining GWPF made him one by default.

    • JCH said “And if his co-authors want to remain apolitical they would every right to stop publishing with the guy. That is not McCarthyism. It’s not terrorism. It’s exercising professional judgement, which is their right.

      The content of these communications is unknown. They could easily be completely free of nasty.”

      You are amongst those seeking evidence. But you also claim it is professional judgement. You know this how? Because you were presented with evidence? Oh, wait. No. You weren’t. And yet you feel qualified to offer an explanation…without the evidence.

      Points for consistency: No evidence–>Baseless Claim.

      Hey! Even I could do that!

  38. The insurance companies wait for no one.
    If not settled out of court, this will be an interesting topic to follow.
    http://www.eenews.net/climatewire/2014/05/14/stories/1059999532

    Insurance company sues Ill. cities for climate damage
    Evan Lehmann, E&E reporter
    Published: Wednesday, May 14, 2014

  39. Ok.

    Since no one has come forward with any, you know, actual information about what abuse Bengtsson was subjected to – let me speculate.

    Suppose he got a raft of emails where people said that they actually supported his views, but they were going to withdraw from authoring work with him in the future because they were being pressured to do so.

    While it still wouldn’t be the equivalent of McCarthyism, it would certainly be disturbing.

    Does anyone have evidence of something like that happening? What is it that actually happened that has folks so outraged? Why won’t anyone tell me? Obviously, being “skeptics” and all, you must all know. Why are you keeping it a secret?

    • I’m sorry you don’t appreciate the irony of comparing this with McCarthyism.
      ==========

    • Joshua, as you’ve repeated several times, it seems that no one here knows the specifics. In his brief resigation letter, Bengsston did not name names or give specifics. But the thrust of the letter is that the pressure he was put under was “unbearable.” Without knowing the man or his tolerance levels, I don’t know what he considers unbearable, but I think that it is not unreasonable to conclude from how he expressed itself that he came under pressure which was intense, persistent and unconscionable. He sounds as if was in shock when he wrote the letter.

      Perhaps specifics will emerge, perhaps not, as he would be risking the incurrence of further wrath. But I think that there is sufficient in his letter to justify concern here.

    • You are wrong, kim. I think that throwing around accusations of McCarthyism without evidence of McCarthyism is absolutely ironic.

      It’s the kind of irony that often makes climate “skeptical” websites iron-a-palooza. Where’s the Chief of unintentional irony?

    • Nope, Son; read up Venona.
      ========

    • Faustino -

      –> “I don’t know what he considers unbearable, but I think that it is not unreasonable to conclude from how he expressed itself that he came under pressure which was intense, persistent and unconscionable. He sounds as if was in shock when he wrote the letter. ”

      That is all fine. But we don’t know what it was that he considered to be intense, persistent, and unconscionable. Was it because colleagues wrote to him and said that they wouldn’t co-author papers with him as long as he remained affiliated with the GWPF? Would it be unconscionable if a colleague of his felt that his association with that organization had dangerous global implications, and as a result, they did not want to maintain an collegial relationship with him as long as he remained so affiliated?

      Unconscionable? I don’t think so. I think that would be a case of someone exercising their rights to act on their beliefs just as Bengtsson did when he joined GWPF.

      So while I find it disturbing that he would be so upset, without knowing the nature of the pressures he was subjected to, comparing it to McCarthyism is entirely unskeptical. What I described would not, remotely, be comparable to McCarthyism. And in fact, I would be far more disturbed that people would exploit the suffering relate to McCarthyism to score points in the climate wars.

      –> “Perhaps specifics will emerge, perhaps not, as he would be risking the incurrence of further wrath. But I think that there is sufficient in his letter to justify concern here.”

      Sure, concern is merited. I wouldn’t argue otherwise. My point is that these accusations of McCarthyism, and “terror,” and concentration camps, and Goebbels, are also concerning – given that it certainly seems that they are being made with no, zero, nada, zilch, niente, bubkis evidence to justify the comparisons.

    • I’ve read it, kim.

      And I have known people who were accused w/o evidence. I know people who were persecuted for their political ideology.

      And, I’ll link this again as well:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavender_Scare

      And once again offer this quote:

      On one occasion, he went so far as to announce to reporters, “If you want to be against McCarthy, boys, you’ve got to be either a Communist or a co**s**ker.”

      Defend that to your heat’s content, kim. And then climb on your moral high horse. I always loves me some irony.

    • Joshua you provide an excellent example of a denial.

    • ceresco kid

      Joshie- I doubt you’ve even gotten out of the pumpkin patch.

    • Joshua gives evidence of having read the undecrypted Venona, and understood every word.
      =========

    • Don Monfort

      Joshie has nothing but complaints about “skeptical” websites. But here he hangs bombarding the place with his inane loquacious smarminess. Judith should have kicked your silly ass off here long ago.

    • Of course nobody has any evidence of anything other than the startling letter of resignation , you already know that so go lurk under your bridge and wait for billy goat gruff to come along!
      People may wish to comment on the weather or the football ,but on here it is what is happening on Planet Climate, so there is obviously going to be some speculation about what has happened. I would not think it is going to be very long until we have some revelations ,but then again if the Professor is so scared, it may be he will not reveal anything. You of course would prefer the latter option.
      The more interesting question to me ,is why do you feel the urge to be the attack dog of warmistas ? As you say there is no evidence of anything other than the known facts , so what is your motivation for being here?
      I find your presence disturbing , you being the self elected critic of nothing .
      I look forward to my next visit to the USA , where I suspect a new question may be ..Are you now or have you ever been a member of an Anthropological Global Warming Skeptic Group?

    • David Springer

      Joshua | May 14, 2014 at 10:21 pm | Reply

      Since no one has come forward with any, you know, actual information about what abuse Bengtsson was subjected to – let me speculate.

      A whole couple hours have passed since you made your petulant demand for evidence. Now you display the patience of a child too.

      You’re a real tool. A walking talking dickhead.

    • Joshua, at 10:21 you say: “Since no one has come forward with any, you know, actual information about what abuse Bengtsson was subjected to – let me speculate.

      Suppose he got a raft of emails where people said that they actually supported his views, but they were going to withdraw from authoring work with him in the future because they were being pressured to do so.

      While it still wouldn’t be the equivalent of McCarthyism, it would certainly be disturbing.”

      First, how can someone other than Bengtsson come up with actual information as to what he was subjected to? I take what he personally said as what he was subjected to. What he personally said is at the bottom of this reply, and it goes much farther than your speculation. Note that he worries about his health and safety, in addition to enormous group pressure.

      Your speculation is that he got a lot of emails from people who said that quietly support him but have been pressured into withdrawing from co-authorship. If that had been the case, I feel pretty sure that Bengtsson would have told us that there were lots of closet supporters.

      And, if that was all the “pressure” that he got, I doubt he would have resigned. Further, I agree with you that if that was all that happened, then it wouldn’t have risen to McCarthyism, but would nevertheless be quite disturbing.

      Let me also speculate as to what sort of pressures Bengtsson received. Perhaps he will tell us more, but until he does, here are some of the things that I suspect happened: he was told that he wouldn’t be invited to speak at conferences any more, to become part of any panels, (and yes, to co-author papers). It likely was implied that, regrettably, he would be increasingly and publicly treated as and referred to as someone who is a bit too old, no longer things as clearly as he once did, too bad about the old man. His colleagues would have little to do with him henceforward: he would be shunned by many of his colleagues and friends.

      That sounds a lot more like McCarthyism than your speculation does. Let’s hope Bengtsson can tell us more, so that neither of us have to speculate as much.

      For reference, here is what Bengtsson’s said he was subjected to:

      “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 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.”

    • Suppose he got a raft of emails where people said that they actually supported his views, but they were going to withdraw from authoring work with him in the future because they were being pressured to do so. …

      Then that would be reprehensible.

      That’s why you wait for evidence.

  40. ceresco kid

    Barty, Joshie, David and JCH are treating this like they treated the pause…err…hiatus..err non-warming. The first phase….there is no pause. Second phase….not much of one. Third phase…..well see, there are these other forcings that hide the warming and the warming took a deep dive and now lives with the fishes.

    They will follow the same steps here. Tonight they are in denial. Tomorrow it will be minimizing the problem. The next day it will be that all the guilty parties will fess up and say “The Devil made me do it”

    • What are you babbling about? There is still no empirical-statistical evidence for the alleged “pause”/”hiatus”/”stop”, or whatever you want to call it, of global warming .

    • Don Monfort

      Looks like janny p p is still stuck in the first phase: denial.

      Just a friendly reminder: the pause is killing the cause.

    • This must be why Montfort and his likes never have to offer anything else than some blubber about “denial” and similar ad hominem, and never present the empirical statistical evidence for the alleged “pause”/”hiatus”/”stop” of global warming, asserted by them.

      It it really was as clear as they pretend to be, why do they notoriously refuse to show the statistical metrics based on which it could be shown that there was “pause”/”hiatus”/”stop” of global warming?

    • Matthew R Marler

      Jan Perlewitz: What are you babbling about? There is still no empirical-statistical evidence for the alleged “pause”/”hiatus”/”stop”, or whatever you want to call it, of global warming .

      That may be your take on the substantial statistical evidence, but most of the mainstream climatologists promoting AGW are busy developing explanations for the “pause”; such as a dramatic switch (with no substantiated mechanism but several hypotheses, obviously ad hoc) at about 1998 whereby the atmospheric CO2 started to warm the deep ocean instead of the troposphere and surface.

    • Jan,

      People who want to argue over terminology such as the “pause” are missing the point. Simply put, the models and the empirical data are diverging. Doesn’t mean warming has stopped. But it is a pretty good sign that the models are nowhere near as accurate or capable of projecting changes in the climate system as some people keep claiming.

    • timg56 on May 15, 2014 at 8:09 pm:

      People who want to argue over terminology such as the “pause” are missing the point.

      I am not arguing over the terminology. I do not care much whether it is called “pause”, “hiatus”, or “Mr. Smith”. I am asking for the emprirical statistical evidence.

      Simply put, the models and the empirical data are diverging. Doesn’t mean warming has stopped. But it is a pretty good sign that the models are nowhere near as accurate or capable of projecting changes in the climate system as some people keep claiming.

      So, please tell me what data from the models and from measurements were compared and based on what metric and criteria have you determined that the models and the empirical data were diverging in a way that it would scientifically justify the conclusion, which you are asserting here. Or in what scientific publication can I find this?

    • Generalissimo Skippy

      http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n9/full/nclimate1972.html?WT.ec_id=NCLIMATE-201309

      Of course the problem could be subjectively choosing the wrong freakin’ solution from a family of feasible solutions because they have not the slightest freakin’ clue.

      e.g. http://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709.long or http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1956/4751.abstract

    • philjourdan May 16, 2014 at 8:34 am:

      Trenberth and Jones disagree with you. So does the data – http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss-land/from:1997/to:2014/trend/plot/rss/from:1997/to:2014

      What are these data supposed to show? They don’t show anyhing. Where is the empirical statistical evidence? Where is the comparison with the models? Ever heard of confidence intervals? Statistical significance tests? Probably not.

      • Sorry Jan, but models do not matter. Data does. If your models do not agree with data, your models are wrong, not the data. The data shows you are wrong.

        It does not have to show anything else. It is data. And that is called science. Not mysticism.

    • Generalissimo Skippy on May 16, 2014 at 3:26 am

      http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n9/full/nclimate1972.html?WT.ec_id=NCLIMATE-201309

      I know this paper. I consider the methodology and the arguments presented in the paper as flawed. Why?

      The authors claim an “inconsistency” between observations and models, since the surface temperature data (HadCRUT4) had a trend of 0.14 deg. C/decade and the simulated ensemble mean over the models, calculated from the grid boxes of the models where observations exist (which is flawed in my opinion, since excluding of mostly the high latitudes from the model data may emphasize a warm bias in lower latitudes in the models making them appear warmer than they are, but a possible cold bias of the global observations data set is not excluded in this way) had a trend of 0.3 deg. C/decade between 1993 and 2012. For the period 1998-2012 the values were 0.05+/-0.08 and 0.21 deg.C/decade, respectively.

      Nature provides only one single realization of many possible realizations of temperature variability over time from a whole distribution of possible realizations of a chaotic system for the given climate conditions, whereas the ensemble mean of models is an average over many of the possible realizations (117 model simulations in this case). Each individual model simulation can be considered as a single realization from the distribution of all possible realizations. How is it scientifically justified to claim an “inconsistency” between a single realization and the average of many realizations, just because one single realization, the one from Nature, is different from an average of many realizations? One can see rom Figure 1 in the paper, that a few of the individual model simulations show about the same trend values as the trend from the observation.

      If the models were perfectly able to simulate the probability distribution of the population of possible realizations in Nature, so assuming the models were flawless, and the one realization from Nature, which we know lies itself in the tail of the probability distribution of Nature realizations, then this realization will also lie in the tail of the distribution simulated by the models with necessity. According to the (flawed) logic in the paper, an “inconsistency” between Nature and models would have to be diagnosed, which is a logical contradiction to the assumption.

      Of course the problem could be subjectively choosing the wrong freakin’ solution from a family of feasible solutions because they have not the slightest freakin’ clue.

      I do know understand what you mean with “choosing” a solution.

    • Jan P Perlwitz on May 16, 2014 at 10:48 am:

      I do know understand what you mean with “choosing” a solution.

      It was supposed to say “I do not understand …”

    • Nice Jan,

      Borrow a page from David Appell’s playbook and act like you’ve never seen information. Even the MSM has discussed the divergence between temperature data and model projections. You are saying you haven’t seen a single presentation of this? Where a plot of temperture against those of various model outputs shows temps plodding along while the majority of the models race upwards?

    • timg56 wrote on May 16, 2014 at 12:42 pm

      Borrow a page from David Appell’s playbook and act like you’ve never seen information. Even the MSM has discussed the divergence between temperature data and model projections.

      Did I read this correctly? Did you just say “MSM”? You are directing me to the media where I should inform myself about scientific evidence regarding statements about scientific questions? Really!

      I do not consider the media a reliable source at all for getting properly informed about science or scientific evidence for claims made. In contrast, you seem to think that claims must be true, if they were even made in the mainstream media.

    • Matthew R Marler

      Jan P. Perlwitz: I consider the methodology and the arguments presented in the paper as flawed.

      Fair enough. We all find flaws in the various papers. Hardly a one can be said to be perfect. But is it a sign of “bad faith” for others in the field to disagree with your evaluation of this paper?

    • philjourdan wrote on May 19, 2014 at 11:05 am:

      Sorry Jan, but models do not matter. Data does. If your models do not agree with data, your models are wrong, not the data.

      So you are asserting, when you have data based on measurement these data can never be wrong. Is this correct?

      The data shows you are wrong.

      Please state your criteria and the metrics which you apply for such a statement.

      You showed following graphic to support your assertion:
      http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss-land/from:1997/to:2014/trend/plot/rss/from:1997/to:2014

      What would have to be fulfilled so you would accept a statement to be right that the models agreed with the measurement data? Only if there was a point-by-point 100% match between the climate model data and shown observation data?

      So what are you demanding? That models which simulate a physical system must be perfect, i.e, perfectly reproduce observation/measurement data w/o any allowable range of discrepancy, before you would accept any prediction or other conclusion from model simulations as a scientifically valid one?

      It does not have to show anything else. It is data. And that is called science. Not mysticism.

      Really. Observation data are always right. Statistics don’t matter. Developing scienctific criteria for how to assess theoretical understanding or models in comparison to observations/measurements doesn’t matter.

      You have a quite absurd understanding of science.

      • You have a quite absurd understanding of science.

        Jan, with all due respect, I have to wonder the same. I provided links to 2 NASA papers showing that GCM regional results are drastically wrong, and the only reason the results are as close as portrayed, is that they are averaged globally.
        I also show that actual surface measurements give a far different view of surface temps than the published global temp records. At a minimum they show that temp trends have not been uniformly global, so while you could make a case that CS is high in the Northern Hemisphere, it’s much much lower in the tropics and Southern Hemisphere, again how can it be called global warming when it’s not actually global. And the sheer lack of temperature sampling in the past makes any trend derived from these measurements suspect.

        Lastly, I spent over 15 years supporting simulations, much of which was explaining why the simulator gave results that did not match the expectations of the user. While I see value in GCM’s, making policy that will have a multi-trillion dollar impact from them is absurd, unless one is clueless or has an agenda.

      • Data cannot be wrong. However the interpretation or the collection of data can distort it so that it is no longer correct. Then it is not data.

        For a model to be accurate it has to at least give the semblance of mimicking reality. The models are not correct even if the impending El Nino pushes temperatures up. Why? Simple. The models do not model a stair step temperature rise. That is not to say they cannot be changed to account for it, but at present they do not. They do not allow for long periods of basically stagnant temperatures.

        Think of it as a broken clock. It tells the correct time twice a day. And if the temperatures stair step up again, the models will be close (but not accurate in any case). For the models to be useful, they should forecast trends more often than once every 20 years.

  41. David L. Hagen

    ‘Witch-hunt’ forces out climate scientist

    A leading climate scientist has resigned from the advisory board of a think-tank after being subjected to what he described as “McCarthy”-style pressure from fellow academics. . . .

    • Heh, your article fades out just as it gets to the US Government scientist. Oh, the teases.
      ==========

  42. Not to beat a dead anti-anti-communist horse, but McCarthy was proven essentially right in his claims that agents of the Soviet Union were present throughout the US government in the 50s, including at the highest levels.

    The only victim of hysterical conspiracy theories were conservatives who fought the left’s attempts to support an existential threat to the west.

    But then, demonizing your opponents is a long standing and explicitly endorsed tactic of the organized left.

    • Gary M

      The Soviet Union at the time of the 1950′s was mysterious which enhanced it allure. The USA had many of its warts on display with the emergence first of the conflict and then legitimacy of a Jewish presence and then the foothold gained by blacks for a place at the table of abundance. Many people thought a collective society with a strong central government was the appropriate evolutionary system in man’s progress to it own humanity.

      Unfortunately for the book club set, the counsel on world affairs participants, those who were educated and destine to carry the intellectual mantel, the blinders came off slowly, painfully, stunned by the brilliance of the light of day, the fall of the Berlin Wall, no more mysteries, no more “yes, buts..” there were spies who revealed secrets for which people in distant lands died. And, in the end, the “Containment Policy” proved more correct than any other government policy of appeasement much to the chagrin of academics from the highest places. John Foster Dullas, Dwight David Eisenhower and not Adele Stevenson had the best approach.

      So yes, Joseph McCarthy articulated a reality and then proceeded to destroy people’s lives as carelessly as any Stalinist.

      Its how one goes about inquiring about the truth. Just as then and is now. Climate Scientists are engaged in Climate McCarthyism. It is really about how one goes about maintaining one’s integrity in a conflicted world.

    • McCarthy was an appalling lout who was right. The climatariat don’t have the excuse that they are addled by drink…and they are wrong to boot.

    • George Kennan on Containment not War. A fascinating study
      of the battle of opposing political system.
      http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2011/11/quick-study-george-kennan%E2%80%99s-cold-war-policy-containment

    • mosomoso,

      An excellent summation of the McCarthy phenomenon.

      He was substantially right, but also an arrogant blowhard of a senator. (OK, maybe that’s redundant.)

  43. Good for him, we’ll take him back even with the “greenhouse mafia” slur.

  44. Warn your kids about bullying on the internet. Don’t tell them that adults do it too, business as usual in certain cliques.

  45. 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 for the conspirators. 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

    • OK, Federal scientist pens billet doux to Bengtsson. Well, you brought up the Federal Pen.
      ========

    • Sounding more and more like Stephen E. Schwartz, though he has also worked with GA Vecchi and CW Landsea.

      Or it could be a Gavin Schmidt type, lol.

      Since we’re hallucinating on adrenalin, maybe pressure reads like this

      Dear Lennart,

      I cannot in good conscience write a paper with a somebody who is a member of the GWPF. Best of luck with your new endeavor.

      US scientist who works for the US government

      Wow, dripping with threat and intimidation.

    • The civil rights conspiracy statute requires proof of both an identifiable Constitutional or federal statutory right, and specific intent of the conspirators to deprive the victim of his federal right. It was passed to aid implementation of the 13th and 14th Amendments. The primary concern was voting rights of recently freed slaves, and the Democrats then newly formed auxilliary, the KKK.

      I don’t see any real likelihood of prosecution in this case though. And I think that’s a good thing..

      First, this administration would never prosecute anyone acting to further its energy control agenda, as you suggest.

      Second, proving specific intent to deprive Bengtsson of his right of free association (or any other federal right) would be problematic. Application in this context could criminalize all sorts of legitimate speech, from consumer boycotts to political campaigns. Did those who pressured the NBA to force that progressive nut case Donald Sterling out of the NBA commit a crime?

      Third, I am not sure you could define ostracism and withdrawal of co-authorships as threats or intimidation for purposes of the statute.

      More importantly, the last thing skeptics need to do is join progressives in criminalizing speech.

      • David Springer

        Gary I think it’s a freedom of religion issue. Specifically Bengtsson wanted to be free of the misanthropic cult “The Church of Carbon Sin” and they conspired to not let him out.

    • David L. Hagen

      Gavin demands faith in consensus
      Science as McCarthyism : “Another scientist gets blackballed for his skepticism about global warming.” By Rupert Darwall

      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. . . .
      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.

    • JCH,

      Collaberation in publishing is important, and publish or perish still holds. You can try to down play it all you want. Only shows you would rather turn your blind eye to the situation than give up on your belief system.

  46. It somehow doesn’t surprise me that a lot of skeptics defend red-under-the-beds McCarthyism, because it is those same people that accuse almost all the scientists of being in a global socialist plot instead of just presenting their scientific results.

    • Generalissimo Skippy

      Is the conspiracy theory about conspiracy theories:

      a cognitively dissonant;
      b infinitely regressive;
      c a little from column a and some from column b?

    • You make it sound Jim that the agenda and political association of the “consensus” are beyond question. That’s nonsense of the first order.
      Do you see the impact in a U.S. society has only 7% GOP representation in say “journalism”?

      http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/05/06/just-7-percent-of-journalists-are-republicans-thats-far-less-than-even-a-decade-ago/

      That included David Brooks and who knows how many other false flag GOP members in the poll.

      Where is there a poll of climate scientists and their political coloring? It isn’t “conspiracy theory” or a “plot” Jim D, it’s pure human nature in a deeply polarized society with dozens of intricate self-segregated political enclaves. All of the most active green activist warmers are deeply left-wing in culture, tone and messaging. Many radically so.

      For all of flaws of Senator McCarthy you miss the most important part of the story, he was often correct. There were communists all through the FDR/Truman administrations and in many social and commercial enclaves. The smear use of “McCarthyism” is quite hypocritical considering FDR interred people without trials, directed branches of government to destroy individuals who were symbolically and politically important (Andrew Mellon quickly comes to mind), stacked court appointments and whose entire presidency garnered class war mob hatred as a driving policy (any reminders of something more recent Jim D???).

      I suspect many climate scientists would just outright light at this point if surveyed but a serious attempt should be made. AGW is an outgrowth of the “Che” tee-shirt, Earth Day Green crowd of the 60′s. That is the “consensus” and the bully and thug tactics are directly related.

    • GS, the difference is that I don’t think they are conspiring to have that socialist-takeover theory. They each individually have that ideation by their own declarations on these pages and I am pointing that out. Surely you have noticed them too.

    • cwon14, the conspiracy theory about the 97% having a political agenda doesn’t hold water when many of these scientists are either politically to the right, or not at all political. You have painted them all with a convenient brush for your theory, but that doesn’t work with any knowledge of the many individuals in this 97% who only want to talk about the science, and the explanations of past and current climate and how it can change in the future. Politics-first skeptics do a lot of projection of their own motivations onto the scientific community, thinking that every scientific idea has some political idea behind it.

    • Skeptic science, i,e, the “science” we skeptics mean when we say “science” is the scientific results, it is hypothesis testing.

      In contrast, when the media, politicians and many many academics talk of “science” they mean a group of people, almost entirely academics and the rules of this club is that you can only get in if submit to other members of the club and get them to sanction your membership (which comes by getting papers and grants).

      So it is a “social” plot – it’s something I call “consensus science” – science by committee. It isn’t what most skeptics were taught as “science”.

    • Jim D says,

      “the conspiracy theory about the 97% having a political agenda doesn’t hold water when many of these scientists are either politically to the right, or not at all political.”

      What a naive view of politics!

      “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

      H. L. Mencken

    • You have your sides backwards. You and your ilk are defending McCarthyism. You seek to excuse it with lame excuses and evasion. If you were indeed pro science, you would condemn, unconditionally, the treatment. It matters not WHAT was done, only that suppression of science has been done.

      yet you excuse it. The New McCarthy.

    • ‘I received emails from colleagues all over the world telling me it was a “questionable” group.

      ‘But what made me the most upset was when a colleague from the US resigned as co-author of a paper, simply because I was involved. … – Lennart Bengtsson

      Note how far he has backed off.

  47. When a famous trainer was helping make a movie about Australia’s equivalent to Seabiscuit, the director asked him if it would be somehow possible to recreate a realistic Melbourne Cup with all the horses finishing exactly as they had done in the original race in the 1930s. The horse trainer and his mates had a good laugh before giving a definite yes. Seems they’d had plenty of practice at that sort of thing.

    I think we can say from Bengtsson’s experience that it will always be possible to have 97% of scientists holding to some consensus or other. The trick will be not to laugh.

  48. Coming after Professor Emanuele’s of MIT admission that Climate science from the 19th century was behind the IPCC’s work, it is perhaps understandable why so many attacked Bengtsson.

  49. There is of course the knee-jerk reaction of many of a certain kind of skeptic to make Dr. Bengtsson into some kind of counter consensus hero, similar to the Dr. Curry treatment. A little critical thinking for a moment. He hasn’t revealed much, doesn’t discuss what the AGW movement is directly linked to as an agenda and speaks in the same sniveling terms of the events at hand.

    Rudolf Hess flies to England.

    He’s born in 1935 and he sights concern over his career? He’s 79 years old and is known worldwide in part for his conformity to AGW advocacy as weaseling and vague as that may have been over the years. He “regrets” politicization? He’s seen and actual been part of the consensus crime spree of the later 20th century to date and this is all he wants to fess up to? Everyone is now in a hurry to forget he’s a perpetrator with a long history of looking the other way (at best), of false equivocation of who was the bully and thug in science and most importantly the underlying political agenda that is a 200 kilo anvil around his neck. An underlying global statist control agenda he likely sympathizes with to this moment. None of that is renounced or even acknowledged to exist. Shouldn’t he apologize for general political thuggery of the “consensus” as far as he has contributed support in the past? Shouldn’t the Greenshirt global agenda of AGW be acknowledged in direct terms as he has only witnessed the growth and machinations over what 50+ years??

    His resignation is of course gutless, he’s still a member of the same mob even if he left the consensus bunker for what….two weeks? He doesn’t want the noise so other people are standing up to Soviet science standards brought globally to try to protect his freedom as well as anyone else’s. They told him to resign and of course he did, another AGW advocate point scored.

    If they were real defectors the would renounce the whole AGW, globalist, central planning agenda beyond the mere tactics that are causing his trepidations of the moment. Their conformity is intact, they never directly acknowledge the underlying political purpose of the AGW meme from inception so it’s really more a case of dropping the burdens of forced servitude of being expected to be green activists rather then contrition for what the AGW movement truly represents. Oh, it’s a crack in orthodox. It’s a positive but this sort of skepticism is miles from the actual truth that as it turns out many skeptics and warmers right here on this board will be upset to be reminded of.

    Maybe more will come but somehow I doubt it, he’ll have green advocacy expectations for his contribution muted. His peer perpetrators told him to jump and he asked how high. Exhausted and burned out Greens aren’t exactly the same as repentant and ultimately somewhat reformed ones. If they are still obfuscating the central political purpose of climate agenda science through abstraction they are still serving a purpose to that agenda.

    • This might all make more sense if Bengtsson hadn’t been talking about the “green mafia” since 1990. I haven’t seen any of the discussion about him claim any recent conversion to skepticism. From what I have read about his position over the years, he sounds like a typical lukewarmer.

      The only recent change I see is his joining GWPF. A certain amount of dissension within the “scientific” discussion is tolerated. (From recent discussion about the “pause” and ENSO, I am beginning to believe there is much less consensus among the consensus than most believe.) But associating with heathen apostates cannot be countenanced.

    • But I will say I find it naive for him to be surprised by the reaction he got to joining the GWPF. Members of the tribe are always so shocked when they find themselves on the receiving end of what they have seen others endure for decades.

      This is what progressives do, and have been doing for decades.

    • It’s about expectations Gary, I hear what you are saying but if the best that is going to be achieved is insider (left-wing) in-fighting while continued mythology that the broad AGW movement is “scientific” (which it isn’t) then little progress is made.

      Getting hate from your political peers who think you’ve gone soft has nothing to do with free-speech or the politically misaligned pejorative “McCarthyism” which is term fraught with illogical thinking and social bias to begin with. Despite all his flaws and excesses Joseph McCarthy happened to be on the right side of history and often accurate in his general assessment regarding communist social infiltrations. so when liberals such as Dr. Curry use the term it certainly sounds hollow and twisted.

      This is about liberal orthodox, a thousand light-years from “McCarthyism” in any fantasy form you might choose.

    • Of course this slanging match happens because of the on/off nature of climate change. which is perfectly predictable from 20th century physics. Whether you are a believer or sceptic depends on which era of climate you look at. For example, the singularity of 1940 separates two different eras. 1910 to 1940 is a warming era, whereas 1940 to 1970 is a cooling era, all of which is very confusing to the oceans which have a very long memory.

      See my theoretical model underlined above.

  50. This is quite extraordinary. It seems these turn of events will have more impact, since bad news is always good advertising!

    There are not many forums where opposing viewpoints on global warming /climate change can be disseminated effectively. And while I appreciate the effort made by “free market” think tanks /institutes (such as Heartland) to give skeptics a platform, I also think it’s very sad that it is left to these types of organisations (which I don’t really rate at all, but really enjoy watching credible scientists like Lindzen give talks…..)..

    It just goes to show, that these days, the appearance of authority is rated more highly than the science at issue, GWPF no exception.

  51. Steve Fitzpatrick

    Ummm… After all the breathless press releases for each “it’s worse than we thought” climate science paper, after all the “we are all going to die” editorials by enviro-wacko-advocate/scientists, and after all the obvious efforts to silence and/or ostracize ANYONE who disagrees (eg the UEA emails, or Judith’s experiences), it would be shocking if Bengtsson did not suffer the consequences of a climate fatwa. Public defunding is the only solution to this problem… have Bengtsson provide a list of names, and either pull their public funding, or fire them if they work in a public institution. Nothing else is going to stop this obscene behavior… nothing.

  52. Steven Mosher

    What a great opportunity.

    GWPF is a think tank. It has some baggage. fine

    hmm.

    Time for a different kind of think tank

    Science Advisors:
    Lennart Bengtsson
    Steve McIntyre
    Judith Curry
    Hans Von Storch
    Policy Advisors
    Roger P Jr
    Ross McK
    Tol
    Communications
    Marcel C.

    Now all we need is money.

    • Jim Zuccaro

      Steve,

      +1.

      If you are serious, I can contribute some low $ four figures to the cause.

    • Jim Zuccaro

      Steven,

      No joke. What you say is brilliant. I’d give to it what I could. With no expectations. Let them say what they think is science. Chips fall where they may.

      Thank you, Mosher.

    • ceresco kid

      Best idea you have had. I am sure support would be overwhelming.

    • Tanks for the tinking, moshe. With funding, how would your committee function better than it already does without funding?
      ================

    • Steven Mosher

      @Jim
      Thanks, I’ll need to talk to some folks and see what is involved
      @kim
      Tanks for the tinking, moshe. With funding, how would your committee function better than it already does without funding?

      Think of it as sanctuary.
      Right now if you oppose ANY tenet of the consensus, even the political tenets, you are classed as a denier. with no place to go, people stay in the
      tribe.
      Next, GWPF is tainted, as is heartland, cato, you name it.

    • Heh, moshe, ‘sanctuary’. How about a big hotel in Lebanon? You’ve already mentioned three bombed out castles.
      ==========

    • The Very Reverend Jebediah Hypotenuse


      Now all we need is money.

      And science.

      And more cow bell…
      http://vimeo.com/51038971

    • Well, the alarmists have Ft. Knox and Blue Babe’s oxbell; they just thought they had science.
      ==============

    • Mosher, good idea. Don’t forget John Christy, Nic Lewis, Richard Lindzen, Patrick Michaels, among others. When you think about it, there are a lot more solid scientists that have braved the slings and arrows of Joe Romm and his ilk, to put their own understanding of science before the community.

    • Scott Basinger

      Best idea Mosh has had in a long time, and that’s really saying something. Why can’t we just put you in charge?

    • Steven Mosher

      @Reverend

      think tanks dont do science. they assess science and position science and frame science.
      As it stands climate science needs a re framing.

      @John, I would add Nic Lewis

      The others have too much baggage. Sorry. doesnt mean they are wrong.

      I’d like to add Lomborg, but there too.. baggage.

    • Steven Mosher | May 15, 2014 at 1:36 am |

      If you’re serious, and you almost always are, might one suggest addition of at least some of the reasoned voices Dr. Bengtsson listened to when he withdrew from the GWPF.. on the fair guess that some of these reasoned voices were actually being reasonable in the same way as you’re being reasonable.

      Also, you might want to consider putting McIntyre into a separate category of Statistical Advisor, and expand that, and fill the void to boot with some of your colleagues from BEST.

      There are other names I’d recommend, but I doubt you could get them to commit the time.

    • Interesting that steven can’t think of including anyone that disagrees with him about climate change (and that he wants to include tribalists).

      As a result, his think tank would result in zero change.

      Just more same ol same ol’

    • Joshua | May 15, 2014 at 8:17 pm |

      Mosher’s making a fine distinction about baggage that you might not fully apprehend, as you’re not a Black Hat marketer or habitue of that world.

      He’s been very careful to prune the GWPF list of those most likely to let zealotry overrule good message control. This is a sage move.

      And absent these voices, the GWPF would implode like one of those burning paper bags left at people’s doors on Devil’s Night.

      Oh. Wait. Those don’t so much implode. Still, be entertaining to watch.

    • Bart –

      ==> “He’s been very careful to prune the GWPF list of those most likely to let zealotry overrule good message control. This is a sage move.”

      Zealotry is relative. While none of them are among the most likely, Ross labels and editor a “groveling, terrified, coward. Stevie Mac makes accusations of “cleansing” and makes analogies to child molesters. Tol is very concerned 24/7/365. JPJr. calls people liars and impugns their ethics (with weak tea plausible deniability). Judith and Hans seem to me to match your description – I have no idea about Marcel or Lennart.

  53. John F. Hultquist

    This fits well with the current US commencement season with highly interesting speakers hounded from appearing.

  54. I have read all the comments in sequence on this thread.

    Taking the resignation reasons at face value, some of you ought to be ashamed at your lack of outrage or concern as to what has happened. Whether the eminent scientist concerned is a sceptic or a warmist, that the pressure they received was so severe that they had to recant their position is surely lamentable and disturbing?

    Why not condemn unequivocally the group think, the assumed moral and ethical superiority and the arrogant utter certainty of their case that has meant that his colleagues have presumed to bully this man into telling him how he ought to think and to get back in line?

    This is disgraceful behaviour by parts of the climate science community which should be condemned outright.

    The motto of the Royal Society is ‘nobody’s ones word is final.’ It seems that in the case of climate science that belief is thought to be outdated and it is thought acceptable to bully those that retain their scientific scepticism.

    Whatever ‘side’ you are on and whether the scientist concerned being vilified is a sceptic or a warmist this sort of bullying should be condemned.

    I am at a climate conference this afternoon at Exeter University. It will be interesting to see if it is a topic of conversation.

    tonyb

    • When it comes to high-tech lynchings, I never take anything at face value. I should probably be more reckless and join in on the fun of hanging the potentially innocent by the neck until their reputations are damaged significantly, but there something about damaging the potentially innocent that bothers me, and I am not really deeply ashamed that it does.

      You do not know what the co-author who works for the US government said to him. Maybe he cited a federal regulation that he thinks prohibits him from working with a policy lobbyist. Maybe he was wrong about the regulation applying. Maybe, maybe, maybe. Nobody knows what was actually said to Bengtsson.

    • This aspect of science is actually very old hat. Democracy is a disaster as far as I’m concerned but unless there is a better, I’m sticking with it, as I am with science…
      Perhaps there are not enough “mavericks” (see Climate Etc.)? Last discovery that really made a difference is probably Penicillin:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Florey

      80 million lives and counting (and yes, the big pharmaceutical companies rejected his science, primarily because flemming’s group only had incomplete structure of molecule).

      Science is always a battle, and so it should be. The good fighters are remembered. The really awful fighters (in terms of science) like Mann are forgotten in time….

    • ceresco kid

      JCH takes rationalization to new heights. He can’t bring himself to look at the bigger picture.

    • What big picture? Lol. It’s a big fake picture.

      A very good candidate to be the mysterious co-author is Stephen E. Schwartz. He works for the government. He has written a paper with Bengtsson. His scientific work has been very problematic to climate scientist advocates. He writes exactly what he wants to write. He has not lost his job. He publishes a lot of papers.

      In your big picture this guy does not exist, so there is something very wrong with your big picture.

    • Excellently stated.

    • rogerknights

      “Why not condemn unequivocally the group think, the assumed moral and ethical superiority and the arrogant utter certainty of their case that has meant that his colleagues have presumed to bully this man into telling him how he ought to think and to get back in line?”

      That’s what’s most “revealing” about this episode. Not the persecutory aspect, which is mild compared to real McCarthyism, but “the arrogant utter certainty of their case.” They see themselves as faultless crusaders for a cause. They haven’t bothered to read anything but straw-man versions of the contrarians’ case, but they think the know it all, and that there can’t possibly be any “bugs” in their program. E.g., quoting “Latitude”:

      “A forthcoming paper published in Progress in Physics has important implications for the ‘basic physics’ of climate change. Physicist Dr. Pierre-Marie Robitaille’s paper(s) show the assumption that greenhouse gases and other non-blackbody materials follow the blackbody laws of Kirchhoff, Planck, and Stefan-Boltzmann is incorrect, that the laws and constants of Planck and Boltzmann are not universal and widely vary by material or different gases.”

      Oopsie!

  55. Pingback: Bengtsson resigns from the GWPF « De staat van het klimaat

  56. Pingback: climate “fatwa” … | pindanpost

  57. JCH

    Reread the resignation letter. He is not talking merely about ‘a co-author’ is he? He is talking far more widely. Here is part of the text

    ‘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.’

    All the intellectual and moral gymnastics in the world will not disguise the unvarnished truth that this man was -in his view-intolerably bullied by those he had previously seen as colleagues. I condemn this bullying from whatever ‘side’ it emanates. Will not the warmists on this blog do likewise?

    tonyb

  58. Pingback: Bengtsson redegjør | Klimagrasrota

  59. I find this story really sad. Michael Mann describes in his book the harrassment he recieved from the sceptic (denier, whatever you want to call them) side of the climate argument. And now I read that the sceptics are outraged that the same tactics are being used on another scientist.

    Is this kind of abuse allowed only when it is directed against someone that you do not like (“you” meaning anybody)? I have read lots of nasty words in this blog directed at others. What is the difference?

  60. “We have also seen a disgraceful display of Climate McCarthyism by climate scientists” – JC

    So anyone who disagrees with Bengtsson should just shut the hell up?

    Go free speech!!

    And the poor precious petal has had a week of negative feedback? Oh my, ‘Climate McCarthyism’ indeed.

    Imagine if he’d been subject to ongoing harassment and vitriol for years, he might know what Michael Mann feels like.

    And maybe now that Judith is so so exercised by such things, she might have more insight into the obsessive behaviour exhibited by ‘skeptics’, and herself, towards Mann.

    Will she now de-cry that ‘McCarthyism’?

    ” And we have seen the GWPF handle this situation with maturity and dignity”- JC

    LOL!

    A greater display of PR spin you’ll never see.

    Why else the multiple ‘press releases’ over such a petty thing. They’re trying to milk it for every bit of publicity they can generate.

    • Micheal

      I think you will find that most people will condemn the hounding of anyone wether it be Phil Jones, Mann or in this case Bengtsson. Those that are responsible should be named and shamed. Just because Mann has been hounded for years does not make it right that Bengston is getting the same treatment now. Time to stop the vitriol, name calling and get back to polite debate.

    • “I think you will find that most people will condemn the hounding of anyone wether it be Phil Jones, Mann ” – Jack.

      Looks like most poeple don’t hang out here.

    • So who was arrested Michael?

      Or are you just whining because you think only one side has the right of free speech and the rest of us should STFU?

    • Michael – this isn’t about free speech. Lennart Bengtsson’s detractors have exercised their free speech – no one has shut them up AFAIK. But the free speech “issue” is nothing more than a Red Herring. The real issue is what this exercise of free speech says about those who exercises it against Bengtsson. The issue is the sorry state of “climate science” as illustrated by this incident. Bengtsson should just go postal and name everyone who acted against him and exactly what they did or said. That would be an appropriate use of free speech IMO, and might even do a modicum of good for climate science.

    • Jim,

      “acted against him”?????

      You mean, told him the GWPF was “questionable”

      Poor petal!

  61. ClimateTreason has a nice ring.
    Maybe Joshua Troll Gollum would like to claim his precious?
    This is a sad day for everyone ,I do not think there will be winners only losers . Those Alarmists who are currently ecstatic about this situation may live to have the smile wiped from their faces.One can only hope.

    • http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/05/mccarthyism-my-foot-stoat-has-story.html?showComment=1400136030423#c1487360911034584445
      Luboš Motl: May 15, 2014 at 4:40 PM
      Decent people all over the world should find all conceivable legal tools to physically liquidate ultra extreme fascists who authored the disgusting article on this blog and who have intimidated the Swedish scientist. Apologizing the reaction by the climate fascists is unforgivable and as far as I can say, William Connolley and the cripple on this blog should get a death penalty.

    • Louise

      Very silly comment at a particularly nasty blog.

    • Death threats are “silly” whereas poking fun is “nasty” – strange set of values you have there.

    • Funny old world, when a blog that uses hate speech in it’s title description complains when it peretuates a negative reaction from someone. When that is obviously what it set out to do. Don’t see much fun to be had there. You reap what you sow.

    • Louse

      A stupid comment by Lubos Motl

      tonyb

    • A self-aware internet mourns the disinformation of a Connolley. He is dead, but not yet buried.
      ================

    • Connolley pours the juice of cursed hebernon into the internet’s ears.
      =============

    • nottawa rafter

      Louise, by providing the entire site you have inadvertently made the opposite point you have intended. The consensus view has the power and the skeptical view does not. Skeptics are vulnerable to intimidation due to the location of the power. When the skeptics start pulling the strings then your intended point would be valid.

    • Louise, I think most people know Lubos is often over the top and in this instance should be called on it.

      You calling his comment a death threat is also over the top.

  62. Pingback: The United Nations: “a shadow of its intended nature” | The View From Here

  63. Bob Ludwick

    @ rmobservations et all

    Lost in the rush to ‘condemn the hounding’ of folks, whether they be Bengtsson, Mann, Jones, or whoever is the fact that the hounding of Bengtsson and the ‘hounding’ of Mann et al are in no way equivalent.

    Mann et al are being ‘hounded’ for two major reasons: fraudulent manipulation of data to produce ‘results’ that would support political actions advocated by fellow ‘progressives’ and conspiring with other prominent progressive climatologists and organizations to suppress conflicting data by trashing, personally and professionally, and blackballing the scientists who collected and attempted to disseminate it. In other words, for doing, repeatedly, to other scientists what they have demonstrably done to Professor Bengtsson and are attempting to do to Dr. Curry.

    Professor Bengtsson (and Dr. Curry) are being ‘hounded’ for questioning the catechism. Their scientific judgement may in fact be in error. Or not. I wouldn’t know. The difference is that unlike Mann et al, their ‘errors’, if any, have not been arrived at through fraudulent manipulation of data to support a preordained conclusion.

    • Either way death and rape threats are not okay.

    • Mann et al are being ‘hounded’ for two major reasons: fraudulent manipulation of data to produce ‘results’ that would support political actions advocated by fellow ‘progressives’ and conspiring with other prominent progressive climatologists and organizations to suppress conflicting data by trashing, personally and professionally, and blackballing the scientists who collected and attempted to disseminate it.

      These are not the reasons. For them to be the reasons they would have to be true. These are just libelous accusations, the usual smear and conspiracy fantasies coming from AGW-deniers who have lost the scientific debate a long time ago. It’s their last resort, since they don’t have anything else left. They are desparate.

    • lolwot,

      inserting your head up your own anal oriface is not rape.

      It is impressive at times.

    • Hard to understand how Jan can have that opinion. The emails revealed by climategate are very supportive of what Jan call libellous accusations. Phil Jones was acutely embarrassed about what those emails revealed about his actions. But some people are just shameless…

  64. j ferguson

    Maybe Judith is better situated to learn more about what has actually happened here, and hopefully enabled to share what she learns.

  65. A fan of *MORE* discourse

    QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

    QUESTION I  Can scientists really bring scientific opprobrium upon themselves by posing skeptical assertions and questions like:

    •  “Determination of the dangerous level of global warming inherently is partly subjective.”

    •  “Expected human-caused sea level rise is controversial.”

    •  “Humans may adapt to shifting climate zones better than many species.”

    •  “Evidence for widespread drought intensification is less clear and inherently difficult to confirm with available data.”

    •  “Global climate fluctuates stochastically.”

    •  “That task [of CO2-removal] is made easier by the excess CO2 in the air today, which causes vegetation to take up CO2 more efficiently.

    •  “That path [of prudence] requires policies that spur technology development and provide economic incentives for consumers and businesses.”

    •  “All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.”

    ANSWER I  No scientific opprobrium is associated to the above skeptical statements (which are quoted from Hansen et al. Assessing ‘Dangerous Climate Change’ (2014)).

    ———

    QUESTION II  Can scientists really bring collegial opprobrium upon themselves by ill-advisedly allying with secretive organizations that embrace anti-scientific agendas in service of Big Carbon special interests?

    ANSWER II  Definitely ‘Yes’ … and deservedly so!

    ———

    SUMMARY  Lennart Bengtsson made some ill-advised decisions that he now has reversed.

    It’s not complicated, eh Climate Etc readers?

    \scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

    • Fan

      So you think it is OK for those in the climate community to harass and bully climate scientists who they think are stepping out of line by following the Royal Society Motto that nobody’s word is final?

      I am surprised and disappointed in you bearing in mind the moral dimension you often try to introduce.

      tonyb

    • That moral dimension is just a suit of clothes the members of the committee share when it’s necessary to dress up.
      ========

    • pokerguy (aka al neipris)

      “the moral dimension”

      Only works one way with the estimable Fan. He’s in favor of “more discourse,” but only the right kind if discourse. He advocates for more courtesy and respect, but only accords it to those he agrees with. According to Fan, it’s self-evidently moral to do whatever has to be done to mitigate the coming clime-ageddon….an eventuality that looks increasingly unlikely to anyone paying attention… forgetting there’s a human price to be paid by those least able to bear it.

      Professor Bengtsson is 80 years old, and obviously frightened and appalled at his treatment at the hands of the climate mullahs Putting myself in his shoes…I’m 63 and the clock is ticking ever faster these days..is not difficult.

      Show some compassion, Fan. It won’t hurt.

    • nottawa rafter

      Shame, shame on Fan. He wallows in the weeds, being totally incapable of seeing the larger picture.

    • Fan is a hypocrite and moral fraud, with name-calling, insults and personal attacks hidden behind multi-colored links and glyphs.

  66. Ya know, a valid consensus would not need all this ponied up bullying. This extreme reaction is merely a reflection of its hollowness, falsity, and weakness.

    Small comfort, but some comfort, for the bullied.
    ==============================

  67. Antonio (AKA "Un físico")

    There is no need to resign for, for example, Rajendra Pachauri, Qin Dahe, Thomas Stocker, Matthew Collins, Reto Knutti, Gunnar Myhre, Drew Shindell and many others in the IPCC staff. As I point out in my “Refuting …” document:
    https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4r_7eooq1u2TWRnRVhwSnNLc0k/
    they must: either justify scientifically their claims or make public rectification of IPCC’s scientifically inappropriate claims.
    And a clear message to those inglorious “colleagues” that were withdrawing their support to Lennart Bengtsson: please read my “Refuting …” document and if you need more details to reconsider your position in the climate change debate … we can exchange some emails.

  68. Alexej Buergin

    Climate onion:
    In German an e after an i makes the i long, Zv-ea-bl, not Zvibbl.
    And a Zwiebel is an onion.
    (I suppose Zwei Bel would be 20 db.)

  69. Pingback: NewsSprocket | Warmists Go On Witch Hunt, Force Professor Bengtsson To Resign

  70. In an interview with the Daily Mail, Bengtsson has provided slightly more detail about the unconscionable behavior from his colleagues that apparently warrants comparisons to concentration camps, rape, torture, fascism and more around here:

    “I received emails from colleagues all over the world telling me it was a ‘questionable’ group.

    But what made me the most upset was when a colleague from the US resigned as co-author of a paper, simply because I was involved.”

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

    • Yesterday at six o’clock
      I went to Sennet Square.
      ==================

    • Whoever it was, he has every right to drop out as a co-author.

    • You want a world where a scientist is forced to put his name next to a scientist who is a member of a policy group to which he objects? That would be coercion.

      If the US co-author’s communication was polite, Lennart has wildly exaggerated the situation.

  71. A pretty sorry affair, but characteristic of the times.

  72. 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.

    That to now the only evidence of this is from Bengtsson’s uncorroborated and potentially self-serving account appears to escape Professor Curry.

    • Since people raced off into speculating the worst, what may actually be going on here is calculated bullying of the co-author and an evidence-free smearing of US climate scientists.

      Wouldn’t that be a hoot?

    • How amusing you still miss the irony of his use of ‘McCarthyism’.
      ==========

    • Bullies never recognize bullying. They think it’s normal behavior.

    • David in Cal

      The strange resignation of Wolfgang Wagner as editor-in-chief of the journal Remote Sensing is Indirect evidence of climate McCarthyism. He resigned after there was a furor when the journal published a skeptic’s paper.

      Wagner supposedly resigned because the paper was flawed and he had allowed the paper to be improperly peer-reviewed. However, neither of these statements is actually the case. The paper was peer-reviewed by qualified reviewers and accepted according to ordinary procedures. There’s been no effort to have the paper withdrawn, as could be the case if it really were flawed. As far as I know, no papers have been published refuting the discovery of the controversial paper.

      The real “flaw” in the paper is that it gave support to skeptics by pointing to a possible natural contributor to climate change. And, the real problem with the peer-review process is that reviewers weren’t selected from the climate “McCarthyite” camp, who would have prevented the paper from being published. See http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/sep/02/journal-editor-resigns-climate-sceptic-paper

    • ceresco kid

      Just like the talking points sent out each morning by the Parties, I see the warmists in unison have gotten theirs. Lets use the phrase in all its iterations to say there is no corroboration. That will work nicely until this thing dies down. You have all followed the instructions very nicely. Just like the good soldiers you are.

    • pokerguy (aka al neipris)

      “Bullies never recognize bullying. They think it’s normal behavior.”

      My personal experience indicates otherwise. I was probably 11 or 12 and pushed around a nerdy kid who likely reminded me of the things I despised in myself at the time. I didn’t hit him, but I did shove him a couple of times.. I felt guilty at the time…that is even as I was doing it….and it remains a source of shame for me to this day. .

      I think most bullies fully understand what they’re doing, and on some level dislike themselves for it. Otherwise, I doubt they’d be bullies in the first place. Of course, there are true psychopaths who take pleasure in causing other people pain, but that’s a small minority I would say.

    • I guess googling is a learned trait that some have never bothered with – http://www.tagesanzeiger.ch/hintergrund-und-analyse/Der-Ueberlaeufer/story/17338168

    • David in Cal,

      Yes, the disturbing case of Wolfgang Wagner and the journal Remote Sensing does come to mind. Not only did Wagner feel pressured into resigning as the editor of the journal, but he found it necessary to issue a groveling public apology to TRENBERTH of all people, who had nothing to do with the journal, the reviews, etc. How bizarre.

      The situation in climate science is aptly described by Oxford physicist Jonathan Jones:

      Jonathan Jones on the Remote Sensing brouhaha

      This is truly bizarre, and just shows how profoundly warped the climate science community has become. I make no judgement here on the correctness of the paper, but editors just don’t resign because of things like this.

      Nobody resigned at Science when they published that utter drivel about bacteria replacing phosphorus with arsenic; they just published seven comments (IIRC) back to back with a rather desperate defence from the original authors.

      Nobody resigned at Phys Rev Lett when I trashed a paper (on the evaluation of Gaussian sums) they had selected as one of the leading papers of the month: indeed nobody has formally ever accepted that I was right, but remarkably all the later papers on this subject follow my line.

      I have been up to my neck for over a year in a huge row with Iannis Kominis about the underlying quantum mechanics of spin sensing chemical reactions, and either his papers or mine (or just possibly both) are complete nonsense: but nobody has resigned over Koniminis’s paper in Phys Rev B or mine in Chem Phys Lett.

      Sure, my two controversies above never hit the popular press, but the arsenic stuff was discussed all over the place, far more than Spencer and Braswell.

      What sort of weird warped world to climate scientists inhabit? How have they allowed themselves to move so far from comon sense? What is wrong with these guys?

      Sep 2, 2011 at 9:51 PM | Jonathan Jones

  73. Pingback: climate "fatwa" ... | Gaia Gazette

  74. I don’t get it. The science is settled as agreed by 97% of scientists and the solution is stop burning fossil fuels and trying to survive on a windmill and solar panel on your house that generates enough electricity to power your laptop for a day. Why are we still spending billions for additional research to tell us….. that the science is still settled?

  75. The Very Reverend Jebediah Hypotenuse


    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.

    Well then – I suppose you’ll be at the front of the line apologizing to Dr. Mann and Dr. Pachauri?

    Deep regrets noted.


    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.

    The level of hypocrisy here is highly entertaining – but not at all surprising.

    At least you didn’t go straight for the Godwin.

    This particular victimization narrative is turning out to be a source of even more pearl-clutching hilarity than the “Sacking of Salby”!!

  76. John McClure

    He told The Times that the strongest opposition had come from the US.

    “It was the climate science community in the US which took this very negatively.”

    This is a repulsive!

    Please name names in the USA who sent you a threat!

    We promise you, the vermin will be exposed to rot in the light of day.

    • Please name names in the USA who sent you a threat!

      Finally, a request for evidence. Though it sounds something like my relative’s favorite saying. He’s a judge. “Bring the guilty bastard in here so I can give him a fair trial.”

    • John McClure

      Exactly JCH — its intended both ways.
      Give us proof and we will bring them before a court for trial.
      This behavior is Not tolerated in the USA!
      I find it patently absurd to consider any USA Scientist would make threats against anyone. Yes, we have a few who are way out in left field but even they aren’t vermin.
      This strikes be as NGO shill activity.
      We need names and proof to act.

    • Here’s another irony: the more this episode is publicized the uglier it will get. We do all remember McCarthy, each in our own peculiar way.
      ================

    • John McClure

      Kim,
      Unlike Dr. Curry, I do not feel the GWPF handled this situation with proper due-diligence. They should have rejected Dr. Bengtsson’s letter of resignation and sent a very strong message to its membership. They should have also investigated any threats and acted responsibly.

      If this is occurring, what evidence is there it will not continue?

      The board and membership of the GWPF should be ashamed of their current stance in this matter!

    • Bengtsson’s not the first, nor will he be the last, martyr.
      =============

    • Face it, tyranny can’t help but create ‘em. It’s machine-like production, an assembly line.
      ========

    • John McClure

      kim,
      The board and membership will either stamp out or allow the tyrannical influence. If they allow it, kiss the GWPF goodbye as it will no longer stand for anything other than the negative influence.

    • John McClure

      Note: my comments are based on what is being reported. I do not have any evidence indicating the Board of the GWPF is not acting on threats to one or more of its members. I hope they are taking the situation seriously!

    • John McClure
      Very good points. We need some hints as to the source and substance of the threats or language. Then the science community as a institution can work to move back to the ideals of issue discussion and evidence.

      The climate gate e mail gave a realistic exposure of malfeasance and even though some editors were fired it dis infected the use of e mails to slander innocent sciencists trying to investigate a complex and poorly predicted system like the climate.
      Scott

    • There is serious rot. Feel the tremors shuddering through the structure. The edifice is collapsing of its own weight, fat, rich, and unreliably underpinned.
      ===========

    • John McClure

      Scott,
      The GWPF needs to determine any threat to Dr. Bengtsson’s health and safety. They then need to file criminal complaints against the individual or individuals responsible for the threat(s).

      This is an international incident involving a distinguished scientist who is 79 years of age.

      There should be a zero tolerance policy for this kind of nonsense.

    • John,

      Yes….unless it’s directed at ‘consensus’ climate scientists, who as Judith has told us, ‘bring it on themselves’.

    • John McClure

      Michael | May 15, 2014 at 6:31 pm |
      John,

      Yes….unless it’s directed at ‘consensus’ climate scientists, who as Judith has told us, ‘bring it on themselves’.
      ========
      Michael,
      There is no question that some of the ‘consensus’ climate scientists like to fan the flames and lob comments into the twitter mill or onto the web. One assumes they do so to encourage a reaction.

      There is also no question that Dr. Bengtsson made some very pointed comments in his interview with Door Crok on May 1, 2014. Interview comments which Dr. Curry reported in the “Lennart Bengtsson speaks out” article on May 3, 2014. One assumes he did so to state his position regarding his appointment to the GWPF board and one assumes he anticipated a reaction.

      But, threats to someones health and or safety is a serious matter. This constitutes a criminal act which should never be tolerated. It doesn’t matter which side of the debate someone represents. It should Never be tolerated!

      The idea that Scientists are threatening one another is insane.

    • John McClure wrote on May 16, 2014 at 10:51 am:

      But, threats to someones health and or safety is a serious matter. This constitutes a criminal act which should never be tolerated. It doesn’t matter which side of the debate someone represents. It should Never be tolerated!

      The idea that Scientists are threatening one another is insane.

      Exactly. Thus, who is supposed to believe that Lennart Bengtsson was threatened by other scientist? Are other scientists supposed to have told him that they are going to beat him up? Or what? And there is nothing in Lennart Bengtsson’s statements on the GWPF thing, according to which he was actually threatened by other scientists.

      Thus, the real question is what is the interest and purpose behind it, which people are pursuing, who are spreading the rumor, here and elsewhere, that Lennart Bengtsson was threatened by other scientists?

    • John McClure

      Jan P Perlwitz,
      I agree which is why I stated that the GWPF should determine the threat to members and if necessary act on it with a criminal complaint.

      Or, as I initially stated, Please name names in the USA who sent you a threat! This would be easy to address via the FBI as its an international issue.

      He clearly stated:
      “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.”

      This could be interpreted to mean, based on stated threats “will even start to worry about my health and safety” or based on the language used to pressure him he “will even start to worry about my health and safety”.

      Either way you look at it, it constitutes either a current threat or a perceived future threat to health and safety.

      Someone is eventually going to raise this issue so I may as will state it. Does Bullying by the ‘consensus’ community constitute a criminal threat?

    • John McClure

      Someone is eventually going to raise this issue so I may as will state it. Does Bullying by the ‘consensus’ community constitute a criminal threat?
      s/b
      Someone is eventually going to raise this issue so I may as will state it. Can Bullying by the ‘consensus’ community, in this case, constitute a real or perceived threat to health and safety? If yes, isn’t this a criminal act?

  77. The fact that the US “scientists” were the villains is key. This is politics. There are significant elections coming up this fall in the US and Obama has decided to make global climate change/stasis/weirding/warming an issue because every other issue is bad for him.
    Real scientists saying real science is not part of the plan. The low-info voters are being told that if they vote for the Democrat there wont be any storms anymore.
    Of course it’s all just lip service. The actions speak louder than words. Here’s a liberal columnist for the Washington Post on the subject: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-the-contradiction-of-obamas-climate-policy/2014/05/06/b607e154-d560-11e3-8a78-8fe50322a72c_story.html

    • This sort of tripe from journalists along with much of what passes for science from “climate scientists” is nothing more than Climate Porn.

  78. Michael Larkin

    I hadn’t heard of Bengtsson before he joined the GWPF. Then all the hoo-ha about that. Now all the hoo-ha about his resignation.

    Standing back a moment, what we have is a question: is global warming anthropogenic, and is it dangerous?

    It’s just a question like any other, such as how did life arise, and does neo-Darwinism adequately explain how it evolved? Or, does HIV cause AIDS? Or, are galactic red shifts always due to recession? Or, can consciousness emerge from matter?

    And yet, with all these questions, and others I could mention, even asking them can be dangerous to careers, in some cases not only those of scientists. With all of them, there is a conventional view that one questions at one’s peril. With all of them, there are substantial numbers of the general public who don’t hold to convention, and not entirely negligible numbers of scientists who don’t either (maybe appreciably more than we know, because it’s hardly in their best interests to voice contrarian opinions).

    In an ideal world, there’d be no harm in asking these kinds of questions. The fact that there is, is what tees me off more than anything about the lamentable state of affairs in the purportedly “modern” world. I think it’s actually to some degree still mediaeval in its attachment to doctrine (be that correct or incorrect).

    I don’t know with certainty what the answers to any of the questions are, but like anyone else, I have my opinions. And, I enjoy having my independence: being able to look at the questions and assess the evidence for myself. Thankfully, things aren’t so bad yet that anyone can stop me doing that. I’ll only really worry when they *can*, though I’ve no doubt that some see an ideal world as being one where they could.

    Here’s a newsflash: never in the memory of man has anyone been able to stop people asking questions, not even the most repressive regimes of whatever political stripe. The Berlin wall fell pretty abruptly, and it’s not impossible that the orthodoxy about global warming will suffer a similar fate. We shall see, because if it’s true that it’s a latter-day version of Tulip mania, nothing can or will stop that being revealed.

    Bengtsson seems to have been very naive about what he was getting into: that’s the only way I can grok his apparently genuine shock at the response he got. Meanwhile, I’m here watching the hoo-ha and am unutterably depressed that asking questions and holding contrarian views isn’t as unremarkable as breathing, and isn’t actively celebrated as a mark of a healthy society.

  79. If climatology is seen as heavily politized (and who can fail to notice that these days) then talented students will choose other fields and funding will dry up. This trend is not good for the science of climatology.

    • So was the co-author who resigned right to disassociate himself from a policy lobbying group?

    • “So was the co-author who resigned right to disassociate himself from a policy lobbying group?”

      No idea. Go debate it.

      But it’s clear that Bengtsson resigned from GWPF over a host of reactions from many if his colleagues, not just one event.

  80. In the modern era everything has speeded up. For instance, with global warming alarmism the hoax was debunked in a matter of years instead of the 50 years it took to debunk the Piltdown Man hoax (and another 50 years to uncover all of the participants in the hoax). And, we are witnessing the fall of Western civilization in our lifetimes.

    • The hoax has been going on for 30+ years and it has not been “debunked” in the MSM, and in some area’s its stronger than ever…

  81. Jeffrey Eric Grant

    It just occured to me that Dr. Bengtsson is in an unique opportunity to “leak” his recent emails, thereby exposing the belly of the beast. Of course, if he were to do that, he would single-handedly bring down those in the US leadership positions to the same level as the other bullies in the play yard. I suspect he would not do this willingly because of the extreme backlash he would experience. I think he has a serious ethical problem — tell what he knows, or keep his mouth shut so he can continue to partake in the banquet.

    This is all political – no science to be found in this event.

    • Yes, he may have damning evidence. He may also have emails that are perfectly free of anything damning at all.

      What extreme backlash? If he has emails that are damning, why would there be a backlash? If somebody threatened him, wished cancer on a his children, etc., that is reprehensible. Why would there be a backlash?

      What we know is his co-author resigned in a communication. If he was ugly, that would be reprehensible. If he was perfectly polite, that would not be reprehensible.

    • Jest a tetch
      That politesse
      The whip end
      Of the lash.
      ========

    • Donald Rapp

      Great idea. It would rival climategate.

  82. This guy is incredibly naive if he didnt expect a huge backlash, as well, why not just withdraw due to health or something unless he wants the spotlight.
    IMO, if anything the attacks he would have faced are tamer than others before (such as JC)have because more people realize this whole GW thing is a big turd…

  83. More Climate Porn from John Kerry and the French pornographers.
    From the article:

    Secretary of State John Kerry welcomed French foreign minister Laurent Fabius to the State Department in Washington on Tuesday to discuss a range of issues, from Iran to Syria to climate change. Or, in the words of the foreign minister, “climate chaos.” Kerry and Fabius made a joint appearance before their meeting, and the foreign minister warned that only 500 days remained to avoid “climate chaos”[emphasis added]:

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/french-foreign-minister-500-days-avoid-climate-chaos_792736.html

  84. Jeepers. Appell and co. are handing GPWF and all opponents of AGW the biggest propaganda victory one can imagine. Do they not understand that non-partisan non-scientists will not trust any science that comes out of a group that crushes dissent?
    Here is what Appell and co. _should_ have said: “This sounds awful; I hope it isn’t true. I am totally against twisting scientists’ arms, certainly in what they can publish, but even in more peripheral issues such as joining policy groups. I call on other scientists to oppose this kind of thing as well; it is completely unacceptable.”
    Just as I said after climategate: AGW supporters do not seem to grasp the harm they are doing to their own cause. The minute we see you as politicians is the minute where we stop believing in your science.

  85. OT, but this is long overdue. I hope, but don’t have a lot of it, that this will take hold in the US.
    From the article:

    SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – Google Inc is already getting requests to remove objectionable personal information from its search engine after Europe’s top court ruled that subjects have the “right to be forgotten,” a source familiar with the matter said on Wednesday.

    The world’s No. 1 Internet search company has yet to figure out how to handle an expected flood of requests after Tuesday’s ruling, said the source, who is not authorized to speak on the record about the issue.

    The decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union, which affects the region’s 500 million citizens, requires that Internet search services remove information deemed “inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant.” Failure to do so can result in fines.

    http://news.yahoo.com/google-gets-down-requests-european-court-ruling-source-183010113–sector.html

    • I’m reminded of the idea that the dawning of machine consciousness will be mourning lost data.
      ============

    • Oh, dang, ‘the mourning of lost data’ is much better.
      ============

    • Personally, I think the dawning of machine consciousness will be the regretting of messy art.
      ==============

    • Bob Ludwick

      @ jim2

      “OT, but this is long overdue. I hope, but don’t have a lot of it, that this will take hold in the US.

      ……..requires that Internet search services remove information deemed “inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant.” Failure to do so can result in fines.”

      You may want to re-think this a bit after it occurs to you that the progressives are the ones responsible for this decision and will be the ones making the judgement as to what is ‘inadequate, irrelevant, or no longer relevant’. Think campus ‘thought police’ on steroids.

    • Bob, these take down notices are from the individual whose information it is. I guess there is alway room for abuse when government is involved, but it appears to be a step in the right direction.

  86. Who are liberals to invoke the muddled pejorative “McCarthyism” when it is their political culture objectively that demonstrates the most totalitarian inclinations certainly through much of the 20th century to present?

    “Stalinism” would be far more politically accurate to the tribe involved here. Then again, Dr. Curry is all for obfuscating the political I.D. of the broad AGW movement as a rule. So she wants to talk “free-speech” and “academic freedom” but the tool nature of core AGW advocacy and how it works most days for most people isn’t going to be labeled. This sort of thing is routine in academics, government, journalism and Hollywood. It’s about liberal/leftist orthodox political correctness and they want to act surprised after lifetimes of exposure? “McCarthyism” is so bogus and politically misrepresented it’s deceptive. So find a left-wing pejorative if you want to assign it to a left-wing movement and culture which of course is what the AGW movement is.

    We’re of course heading to an inside the margin, inside the tribe, “spat” that isn’t going to represent academic/social reform in the least. Dr. Curry and to some other degree perhaps others like Dr. Bengtsson are in conflict with the extremity of consensus leadership and advocacy. More false choice dissent. Think of how everyone below are treated, routinely. Neither of them are going to speak honestly about greenshirt authoritarianism in the first person and we’ll be back to Italian Flags in no time.

    Digressing to 1970′s rationalizations for example that there are really a dozen other “good” reasons to support a carbon tax aside from mythic co2 forcing isn’t going to cut it. Dr. Bengtsson conformed, sent his warning not to be bothered but isn’t going to represent a serious problem to the AGW agenda. These are just insider (leftist) squabbles not serious introspection about what the AGW actually is as a movement.

    • cwon1, greenshirt authoritarians is an apt descriptions of the AGW leaders.Their behavior reminds me of the 1930 Germany brownshirts who used baseball bats to break typewriters of journalists who opposed the fascists.

  87. Steven Mosher

    Why is anyone shocked.

    The consensus is socially constructed and socially maintained.
    The truth is socially constructed and socially maintained.

    Sometimes that construction depends upon reasonable argument,
    sometimes ridicule, sometimes threats of banishment, sometimes threats to livihood, threats of violence, sometimes violence, sometimes ultimate sanctions:death.

    The set of tools used to modify the behavior of those who cross the thin green line is large. In this case it looks as though they have used a proportionate response. They could have sent Santer after him.

    For those of us who realize that the principle issue is power, this episode is just standard operating procedure.

    • David Springer

      Bengtsson was invited!

    • David Springer

      So if Steve were in fascist Germany he’d seek an invitation from the SS so he could try to talk sense to them as an accepted insider.

      Funny stuff, Mosher. Sometimes the juice isn’t worth the squeeze. Write that down.

    • Steven Mosher

      Ask him what that feels like?
      ask Goddard or tallbloke to invite you,maybe they need another keyboard jockey or maybe you guys could play video games.

      • David Springer

        re; video games

        When in Rome. The whole edifice of global warming science is built upon computer models complete with oodles of video animation. Not everyone can sex it up well as Schpielberg’s climate propaganda flick “Avatar” but they try.

      • David Springer

        re; video games

        When in Rome. The whole edifice of global warming science is built upon computer models complete with oodles of video animation. Not everyone can sex it up well as Schpielberg’s Cameron’s climate propaganda flick “Avatar” but they try.

    • David Springer

      Steven maybe take some Marxism to heart and don’t accept an invitation from any club that would have you for a member.

      That’s Groucho not Karl of course.

    • “The truth is socially constructed and socially maintained”

      Nope. The truth is not constructed or maintained. It just is.

      Andrew

    • Heh, the ongoing revelation of truth reveals the social constructions and maintenances to be as fleeting as wisps in the willows.
      ========================

    • Steven Mosher

      Clue to Springer.
      There were no climate models in 1850, or 1896 or 1938.

      history keyboard jockey.. hey you can do that. its called reading.

    • Don Monfort

      Mosher, if you took a poll here I don’t think you would find find many who are shocked, or even surprised. As you say, it’s SOP. Beating up on an 80 year old distinguished academic, who has slightly strayed from the reservation, is to be expected of the climate alarmist mob. He was going to be on the Academic Advisory Council, for chrissakes. How much harm could that do to the cause? We shouldn’t even be having this discussion. Whatever happened to academic freedom?

    • Academic freedom and individual freedom are both being suborned by the government.

    • Steven Mosher

      Ya Don,

      Im just amused at the way people dial up the rhetoric.

      Of course now a door has been opened.

    • It seems some people are exercising their academic and free speech freedoms. That’s a good thing.

  88. Ah, let the old feller go where he wants to go. He was too long with the wrong crowd. He’ll just want to talk adaptation and resilience and white elephants generally. They’re just a different flavour of expensive, these lukies. The spending won’t stop till we get down-and-dirty skeptical.

    Give me foundational skeptics, who caught the foul whiff of politicised climate way back when Schneider was a coolist.

    There shouldn’t be a GWPF because there shouldn’t be an IPCC. Let me have skeptical skeptics about me, skeptics full of the true, the blushful skepticism.

  89. Donald Rapp

    It might be worth considering that long before the current brouhaha regarding Dr. Bengtsson, he had long ago shown his honesty as a scientist in not necessarily adhering to the alarmist party line. One thorn in the side of the alarmist position is the intense warming that occurred in the 1920s while CO2 was still quite low. This warming was as intense as that of 1976-1998, and coincided with El Nino dominance.
    As Bengtsson et al. (2004) said:

    “The huge warming of the Arctic that started in the early 1920s and lasted for almost two decades is one of the most spectacular climate events of the twentieth century. During the peak period 1930–40, the annually averaged temperature anomaly for the area 60°–90°N amounted to some 1.78°C. Whether this event is an example of an internal climate mode or is externally forced, such as by enhanced solar effects, is presently under debate … It was a long-lasting event commencing in the early 1920s and reaching its maximum some 20 years later. The decades after were much colder, although not as cold as in the early years of the last century. It is interesting to note that the ongoing present warming has just reached the peak value of the 1940s, and this has underpinned some views that even the present Arctic warming is dominated by factors other than increasing greenhouse gases.”

    Bengtsson et al. (2004) suggested that “four possible mechanisms, individually or in combination, could have contributed to the early twentieth century warming: anthropogenic effects, increased solar irradiation, reduced volcanic activity, and internal variability of the climate system.” They concluded: “It seems unlikely that anthropogenic forcing on its own could have caused the warming, since the change in greenhouse gas forcing in the early decades of the twentieth century was only some 20% of the present.” However, in considering anthropogenic effects, they dealt only with greenhouse gases, and did not consider the deposition of BC. They pointed out the uncertainties in reconstructing past solar irradiance, and they dismissed volcanic activity as the cause of this warming. Therefore, they sought an answer in terms of the atmospheric flow pattern that drives ocean circulation and results in the advection of warm water into the northeastern North Atlantic. Johannessen et al. (2004) concluded that the warming of the 1920s and 1930s was due to “natural fluctuations internal to the climate system.” Reductions in albedo due to decreasing sea ice induced by wind changes were attributed as the cause of this early warming. However, they claimed that more recent warming in the 1980s and 1990s was due to greenhouse gases. However, Polyakov et al. (2003) concluded that the Arctic is subject to natural oscillatory variations the principal driver for climate change, and that “[greenhouse] warming alone cannot explain the retreat of Arctic ice observed in the 1980s–90s.” Their final conclusion was:

    “The complicated nature of Arctic temperature and pressure variations makes understanding of possible causes of the variability, and evaluation of the anthropogenic warming effect most difficult.”
    Bengtsson, L., V. A. Semenov and O. M. Johannessen (2004) “The Early Twentieth-Century Warming in the Arctic—A Possible Mechanism” J. Climate 17, 4045–4057.

  90. David Springer

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/05/breaking-the-climate-mafia-strikes.php

    Breaking: The Climate Mafia Strikes

    I’ve been referring to the climate campaigners here as the “Climatistas” to chide their cult-like resemblance to the romantic Sandinista sympathizers of the 1980s, but it should not be forgotten that the real Sandinistas were a pack of nasty thugs. Likewise, the climate establishment behaves more like the Mafia today, telling any scientist or academic who might consider any departure from orthodoxy: “Nice little scientific career you have here; shame if anything were to happen to it.

    My bold. Priceless. More at link above.

  91. Jeffrey Eric Grant

    JCH, the backlash for ‘leaking’ the emails is from the establishment. They will see this as an attack on their speriority to guide the CAGW meme. The emails will, if they caused Dr.Bengtsson to relinquish his position with GWPF, justify his decision and place the US leadership squarely in the bad light of world-wide scutiny. Their actions will be put under the microscope; they will react viscerely to the revelation. If they suspect the miscoscope will reveal too much, they will be scurrying around looking for some needed funding – that is why they will react harshly, it is always about the money!

  92. Steven Mosher

    What folks should also see is that this episode demonstrates that the consensus is not about science. Yes there is a science component. That wasnt violated here. What was violated was the political component of the consensus. He lent comfort to the enemy. Pretty simple.

    The Funny thing is what will the guy who threatened to remove his co authorship do now?

    • Rob Starkey

      “What was violated was the political component of the consensus.”

      You call it the political component, but it is really that the so called consensus wants actions taken that are economically unwise. It seems wrong to describe an entire political party as wanting to take economiclly stupid positions.

    • What Mosher said. Also, this level of petty coercion is an indicator that the consensus is losing the political battles. The weeping and rending of garments displayed by the septics plays right into the hands of the bullies. Time for big boy pants.

    • Clark Kent hides in the phone booth to rip off his garments.
      ========

    • Steven Mosher

      “he weeping and rending of garments displayed by the septics plays right into the hands of the bullies. Time for big boy pants.”

      Yes.

      time to turn unleash Appell, agent provocateur extrodinaire,

    • Laff a minute, moshe. I know, you’re just reporting the facts. That’s what’s so hilarious about it all.
      ============

    • Don Monfort

      If the old dude had joined Hezbollah, they would not have batted an eyelash. Probably would have given him an award for wallowing in multiculturalism.

    • pokerguy (aka al neipris)

      What I’ve been calling trademark warmist nastiness for the last couple of years, is ultimately all about defensiveness and anger, which in turn is all about fear. And it ain’t fear of “global warming.” (how quaint that sounds in the age of “climate change” and “dirty weather” and “something’s just not right about those clouds over there”). In fact, it’s the very thing yearn for most in this world.

      Far better we all burn alive than they get exposed for the frauds many of them really are.

    • Not just political, Mosh. Very personal as well. Two different kinds of pressures. Bengtsson got both. Political is about your reputation. Personal is about losing your social circle, about your wife understanding and loving you, but not being able to see friends she used to enjoy any more. Her loss is your loss. Every one is different, but many people really don’t want to lose contact with people they’ve gone to dinner with, raised kids with, over decades. It hurts, especially later in life.

      Most readers of this blog, to judge by their comments, may be pretty thick skinned. But not everyone is.

      And certainly, it is testimony to Judith that she can deal with the attacks on her, personally, than Bengtsson could not deal with. It really does take a lot of personal courage to go against this crowd publicly.

    • The Funny thing is what will the guy who threatened to remove his co authorship do now?

      Good question. If he maintains his stand, there is nothing to prevent Bengtsson from revealing who he is. Yet if he reverses his stand, then his name will be revealed with the published paper by Bengtsson.

      The problem with threats is the collateral damage. he was very childish to make the threat, and now he will understand why. He ceded the power to Bengtsson.

  93. A fan of *MORE* discourse

    BREAKING NEWS
    Denialists play dodge-ball

    For more than three hundred consecutive posts, Climate Etc’s “usual suspects” have played childish dodge-ball with respect to the main common-sense question:

    QUESTION II  Can scientists really bring collegial opprobrium upon themselves by ill-advisedly allying with secretive organizations that embrace anti-scientific agendas in service of Big Carbon special interests?

    ANSWER II  Definitely ‘yes’ … and deservedly so!

    CONCLUSION  Lennart Bengtsson made some ill-advised decisions that he now has reversed.

    Why do denialists dodge common-sense questions?

    The world wonders!

    \scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

  94. Can’t help it. From Bengtsson’s ‘peaceful meteorological community’, they have become ‘rouge scientists’. Please, Gaiazilla, hear our pleas in this plague.
    ==========

  95. If Dr. Bengtsson wanted to be on the right side of history he wouldn’t have resigned from the GWPF at all. He would have condemned political green consensus and apologize for past conformity and line “towing” for what…..the past 50 years?

    Maybe he should have resigned from a professional association holding up the greenshirt party line instead?

    We’re asked by Dr. Curry, again, to conduct the discussion of current events with an outlook and naivete from 30+ years ago. There is nothing surprising about this reporting and imagined “victims” here surprised by events reflect their own clueless bubble culture they belong to (at best). He never noticed Dr. Lindzen being burned in effigy by a mob wearing “Che” tee-shirts before? This culture is all a revelation?

    Has he been living on an ice-sheet somewhere?

    No, it’s just more game playing and marginalized dissent inside the orthodox without actually revealing or discussing the orthodox directly. That would be going TOO FAR in their mindset. The old chess adage applies;

    “The threat of a threat is greater than the threat itself.”

    He resigned which is success to the greenshirts and he warned them to stay out of his yard or else. This is hardly a skeptical success story in the current form. Looks like the bullies got the lunch money from the kid to me. Face saving conformity none-the-less.

  96. The real target here is, of course, not Bengtsson, but GWPF.

    A respected member of the lukewarmer wing of the consensus party joining GWPF made it marginally more difficult to demonize them as all radical right wing science deniers. The consensus wasn’t out raged at what Bengtsson said or might say. He has been saying it since 1990. They got their panties in a bunch because he may have gotten in the way of their Alinskyite tactic of isolating and caricaturing their political opponents.

    We have a saying in Chicago, politics ain’t bean bag. Frankly it’s a shame Bengtsson didn’t just publish the emails he received and stand his ground.

    • He stood it til the waves unhorsed him, the tide is going out.
      ==========

    • Gary M,
      Have to agree with you that the e-mails should be published and GWPF should pursue the issue. FOIA, freedom of information re government and academic scientists would be pursueable if some were identified.
      Scott

    • There is truth to that GaryM, also what we’re seeing is cause fatigue. I don’t doubt that many AGW conformers and formers like Dr. Curry and Bengtsson thought the keys to the city were suppose to be delivered decades ago. Some like Mann and Trenberth are willing to live in the jungle another 20 years or more, dreaming of installing reeducation camps and a NWO when the final victory is achieved in their imaginations.

      Others might be more correctly wondering how climate change advocacy crimes against humanity charges might actually come down in the future and how they and the greenshirt movement is going to be treated in history books. Wimpy as it is some are catching on.

      More minimally when the big fire-up-the-greenshirt-troops fails in November and the Senate is lost we’ll see what use the tactics of EPA authority abuse will look like then. I see weeping in “Che” shirts as the XL gets approved and President Klaatu in the WH talks about leading the North American carbon boom as part of his legacy.

    • cwon14,

      Don’t expect any serious change in US government policy even if the Republicans take the Senate in the midterms this year. They will not have a veto proof majority, so they will not be able to overturn the Obama imperial climate regulations, or force completion of the XL pipeline legislatively.

      The only way they could force a change would be to refuse to fund that part of the government. But even if they win the Senate, there are too many progressive Republicans in congress for them to actually stand their ground against Obama.

      The only way to role back the regulations and get the XL pipeline built is to elect a conservative president, and a majority of conservatives in both houses of congress. 2016 at the earliest, and maybe not then.

  97. CO2 is a trace gas. You can double or triple it and it is still a trace. You can go back in history, when it was ten times what is is now, to when it was 15 times what it is now, and then, it appeared to make no difference.
    It takes care of a small fraction of the Greenhouse effect. Water Vapor takes care of most of the Greenhouse effect.

    Water, in all of its states, is abundant. Water, in how it changes state, in the range that makes life on earth even possible, does regulate the Temperature of Earth.

    CO2 is here to make the green things grow better. Since CO2 increased, very likely because of us, the green things are growing better. That makes life on earth better.

    Reduce CO2 and you would reduce life on earth as we know it.

    It is lucky for us that China and India, know this and they will keep pumping out the CO2 and watching their not as wise competitors fall by the wayside.

  98. Political Junkie

    Michael Mann, Aug. 29, 2007

    “I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an
    investigative journalist to investigate and expose McIntyre, and his
    thusfar unexplored connections with fossil fuel interests.Perhaps the
    same needs to be done w/ this Keenan guy.

    I believe that the only way to stop these people is by exposing them and
    discrediting them….”

    What likely happened to Bengtsson is not a one-off bug, it’s a standard feature of the consensus team’s approach to heretics.

    • Indeed,

      This event is “consistent with” Climate Science Community behavior.

      No reason to doubt. I believe we’re above 97% certainty.

      Andrew

  99. I look forward to the dawn of human conscioussness. 97% of people on the planet have been brainwashed to believe they need to go back to burning dung to power their laptop so that we can slow down the growth rate of plants and speed up the transition to a normal period of climate described as an ice age. It will solve the illegal immigration problem for the US. A lot of Northern homes will be covered with a few miles of ice and the warmth of Mexico will beckon. I’m sure they will welcome all of us with open arms and be happy to give us free education, health care and retirement benefits!

  100. Because I love my beloved “skeptics” as much as I do, I’d like to pass on a few more analogies that have been suggested to me.

    Calligula, Gengis Khan, and Attila the Hun.

    I hope those prove useful. I’ll post more suggestions if I come across any others. Don’t say I never did anything for y’all.

    • “Because I love my beloved “skeptics” as much as I do”

      Joshua,

      Admit it. You love conversation with skeptics (probably mostly because you don’t get as much intelligence and critical thinking in your tribal circles).

      Andrew

  101. Judith Curry writes:

    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

    Judith Curry seems to be confused about free speech and what constitutes “McCarthyism”. She seems to think that free speech and becoming a political activist are something that she or Lennart Bengtsson are not just entitled to, which they are of course, but that this also includes the right to not be critisized and counteracted by the political decisions by other then in response. And when Lennart Bengtsson decides to join a right wing group of political and ideological hacks whose purpose is to spread disinformation and lies about climate science, something that directly affects climate scientists and their research, and when the response to this public political decision and statement is massive criticisms and political decisions by other climate scientists, Judith Curry is complaining about these “attacks” and labels this “Climate McCarthyism”.

    Has Lennart Bengtsson be objected to a government orchestrated witch hunt and prosecution campaign, which aimed to “cleanse” institutions from subservises and political dissidents? No. Has there been any campaign that such a witch hunt and prosecution be installed against Lennart Bengtsson? That he should be removed from his academic positions for his political views? Not to my knowledge. All what apparently has happened is that many people told him their opinions about what they think about his decision to join the GWPF. And some didn’t want to be affiliated with him in this case anymore. Those have the same right to free speech and to make their political decisions as Lennart Bengtsson does. The rest appears to be simply the classical heat and kitchen problem, with which he was confronted. Only, he is not admitting it and tries to spin it differently.

    Nothing of this will diminish Lennart Bengtsson’s scientific contributions to atmospheric physics and climate science.

    The right to free speech and to political activism is not a one-way street, going in the direction of convenience for Judith Curry and others. Surely, the world would be as much nicer from her point of view if it was.

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse

      Jan P Perlwitz  “Lennart Bengtsson decides to join a right wing group of political and ideological hacks whose purpose is to spread disinformation and lies about climate science, something that directly affects climate scientists and their research, and the response is […] massive criticisms by other climate scientists.”

      Prediction  Supposing that Jan P Perlwitz’s assertions are factually accurate — a postulate for which there is ample evidence — then we can reasonably predict that denialists will respond by personalizing the discourse

      *THAT* prediction has been amply fulfilled, eh Climate Etc readers?

      \scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

    • Jan says it’s OK. Such karma.
      ============

    • ceresco kid

      Fan has exposed himself and Jan for what the world recognizes they are, Left Wing Nuts who have been defending deplorable behavior of their ilk and would rather go down with the ship than admit they are losing the public support.

    • Thus, I take from this that “ceresco kid” is an enemy of free sprech and who thinks that defense of free speech makes one a “left wing nut”.

    • Matthew R Marler

      Jan P. Perlwitz: The rest appears to be simply the classical heat and kitchen problem, with which he was confronted.

      I think you might be right. Unless we are informed of the exact wording of the emails and other “threats” we can’t tell. A government official who threatens to take his name off a paper is not McCarthyism; while on federal grants I have threatened to take my name off papers, and my co-authors did not suffer at all (granted, I am not in the least prominent.)

      What is interesting is the degree to which Dr Bengtsson feels he has been onerously criticized for doing something that he thought was pro-social, namely engaging with people who disagreed with the majority opinion.

      . And when Lennart Bengtsson decides to join a right wing group of political and ideological hacks whose purpose is to spread disinformation and lies about climate science, something that directly affects climate scientists and their research, and when the response to this public political decision and statement is massive criticisms and political decisions by other climate scientists, Judith Curry is complaining about these “attacks” and labels this “Climate McCarthyism”.

      Your characterization of GWPF is fallacious. They are a self-selected group of people who, like the mostly self-selected writers for the IPCC reviews, write summaries of the science, and summaries of the limitations of the science, and proposals for public policy. They sometimes highlight the evidence that the IPCC writers choose to downweight or ignore entirely; and they are less enthusiastic about globally coordinated wealth distribution programs IPCC (and poor countries) seem to favor, and more respectful toward economic development and local solutions to pressing local problems (of the sort that socialistic governments like Cuba and Venezuela tend to disrespect.) They are not “right-wing”, “hacks”, whose “purpose” is to “spread disinformation.” That is the adolescent caricature that the critics of Bengtsson evidently subscribe to. They only look “right-wing” to people who are way left of center. To us centrists, they are somewhat “center-right.”

    • Matthew R Marler,

      “They are not “right-wing”, “hacks”, whose “purpose” is to “spread disinformation.” That is the adolescent caricature that the critics of Bengtsson evidently subscribe to. They only look “right-wing” to people who are way left of center. To us centrists, they are somewhat “center-right.”

      You may be right that my labeling of the GWPF as “right wing” has a strong subjective component from my side, and it may show my own political bias. However, the question whether they are spreading disinformation and lies about climate science is something that is verifiable or falsifiable. I do not see that truth with respect to the science was very much on top of their agenda.

    • Matthew R Marler

      Jan Perlwitz: However, the question whether they are spreading disinformation and lies about climate science is something that is verifiable or falsifiable. I do not see that truth with respect to the science was very much on top of their agenda.

      I liked my characterization better: that they remind people of the facts that IPCC and AGW alarmists and moderate promoters downweight or ignore completely. Perhaps some day we can review their writings and find this “disinformation” of which you wrote. My writings about the liabilities in the evidence (the holes in the orthodoxy, so to speak) have also been called “disinformation”, even though everything I write has been in the peer-reviewed and textbook literature.

    • Matthew R. Marler writes:

      I liked my characterization better: that they remind people of the facts that IPCC and AGW alarmists and moderate promoters downweight or ignore completely.

      I see here only two mere assertions without any evidence. One is that there were substantial facts, which were downweighted or completely ignored by the IPCC, “AGW arlamist”, or even “moderate promoters”. The second one that the GWPF would have presented these alleged facts.

    • Scott Basinger

      Jan P Perlwitz “I see here only two mere assertions without any evidence. One is that there were substantial facts, which were downweighted or completely ignored by the IPCC, “AGW arlamist”, or even “moderate promoters”. The second one that the GWPF would have presented these alleged facts.”

      What Matthew Marler has asserted is correct. Both of your statements tells me that you’ve made up your mind without even visiting thegwpf.org.

      Either that or that you are so blindly enamored with your ‘side’ in the debate, that you won’t even grudgingly accept that much of what they write has at least some acceptance and has been published – regardless of whether you agree with it.

    • Scott Basinger wrote on May 15, 2014 at 4:48 pm:

      What Matthew Marler has asserted is correct.

      Well, I guess, if you insist that he is correct, then he must be correct. Not.

      What about you give me one example related to the physics of global warming, of those facts that had been allegedly downplayed or ignored?

      Both of your statements tells me that you’ve made up your mind without even visiting thegwpf.org.

      Why does my statements tell this to you? Because the GWPF tells you want you want to believe? So they must be right? And I must be wrong?

      Either that or that you are so blindly enamored with your ‘side’ in the debate, that you won’t even grudgingly accept that much of what they write has at least some acceptance and has been published – regardless of whether you agree with it.

      What do you mean with has “acceptance”? That there are people who believe in their drivels? What relevance does this have for the two assertions made by Matthew Marler? And what do you mean with “published”? On their own website? And reproduced on other non-scientific websites? Or in some newspapers?

      Before I accept something as a fact regarding questions of science, it will have to be gone through the grinder of the scientific process and the evidence will have to be thoroughly evaluated in this process. The GWPF doesn’t do science.

    • Matthew R Marler

      Scott Basinger: Either that or that you are so blindly enamored with your ‘side’ in the debate, that you won’t even grudgingly accept that much of what they write has at least some acceptance and has been published – regardless of whether you agree with it.

      fair points, at least the criticism of me. I wanted to postpone a point-by-point assessment of GWPF “disinformation” and “counter-points” to some other time. Particular statements have appeared here from time to time. The other day, for example, Nic Lewis at Climate Dialogue (linked and praised here) pointed out how some of the TCS estimates downweighted the empirical evidence by having priors with non-negligible probability at high values, with no evidentiary support other than expert opinion. Whether GWPF has addressed that issue exactly as he did I don’t know, but some of the listed writers have done so, iirc.

    • Matthew R Marler on May 15, 2014 at 6:07 pm

      The other day, for example, Nic Lewis at Climate Dialogue (linked and praised here) pointed out how some of the TCS estimates downweighted the empirical evidence by having priors with non-negligible probability at high values, with no evidentiary support other than expert opinion.

      This is not an example for a fact “downplayed” or “ignored” by anyone, this is merely an example for someone having an opinion about something. Please don’t confuse opinion with facts.

    • Matthew R Marler

      Jan Perlwitz: The GWPF doesn’t do science.

      The IPCC doesn’t “do” science either, fwiw. Like GWPF, IPCC reviews publications (some in the gray and green literature), and makes policy recommendations.

    • Matthew R Marler

      Jan P. Perlwitz: This is not an example for a fact “downplayed” or “ignored” by anyone, this is merely an example for someone having an opinion about something. Please don’t confuse opinion with facts.

      Now you are asserting that “downweighting” is not “downplaying”?

      Notice that what is “upweighted” in the Bayesian broad prior is in fact opinion not evidence. Some Bayesians do and some Bayesians don’t insist that the prior be justified with respect to shareable evidence. The broad priors discussed in Nic Lewis’ post and the others have at most weak justification. The posterior distribution is what combines opinion with evidence.

    • Matthew R Marler on May 15, 2014 at 7:03 pm:

      Now you are asserting that “downweighting” is not “downplaying”?

      I would assert that the two words do not have the exactly same meaning. But that is not the point. Neither is the point that Nic Lewis may have some criticism of some papers on climate sensitivity or of the IPCC report. Criticism also of scientific methodology applied in studies is a normal part of the scientific process. Science moves forward with such criticism. The point is that you make a claim about facts, and then you try to back up your claim by referring to someone else’s mere opinion. Has this criticism even been published in some scientific venue? From what you write here it looks like it was just some post somewhere by Nic Lewis. Since when is it sufficient in science that someone has an opinion about something to consider this something to be a fact?

    • Matthew R Marler wrote on May 15, 2014 at 6:52 pm:

      Jan Perlwitz: The GWPF doesn’t do science.

      The IPCC doesn’t “do” science either, fwiw. Like GWPF, IPCC reviews publications (some in the gray and green literature), and makes policy recommendations.

      Scientific journals publish review papers on a topic now and then. Even when those review papers do not present original research, they go through the same process of peer review as original research articles. They are also scientific publications.

      The IPCC report is as high scientific quality as you can get it. The authors of the IPCC reports are leading researchers who work in the field, which is being reviewed. Go to the WG I report on the Physical Science Basis. Each chapter of the report is based on hundreds of peer reviewed scientific papers relevant for the chapter. The whole report goes through a comprehensive peer review process. This doesn’t mean one has to agree with everything in the report. Like there are probably always scientists who don’t agree with everything that is said in a review paper in a journal.

      Now show me anything comparable to the IPCC report, coming from the GWPF. Or from any other “skeptic” organisation for the matter of fact. And show me the peer review process for the “reports” by these organisations. It’s lightyears between the quality of the IPCC report and the quality of the publications by those organisations.

    • Matthew R Marler

      Jan P. Perlewitz: It’s lightyears between the quality of the IPCC report and the quality of the publications by those organisations.

      “Light years”? Please. It’s longer, but it is full of holes.

      The short report by Nic Lewis, referenced here and published originally at “Climate Dialogue”, showed how some of the IPCC ECS estimates downweight observations by using a Bayesian methodology that gave substantial prior probability to high values of ECS based on unsubstantiated expert “opinion”. It showed exactly what I said it showed, that the IPCC downweights information that GWPF weights more highly. Not one of these priors has been justified by an analysis of data published in peer-reviewed journals, yet the IPCC includes the opinions anyway because the scientists are experts.

    • Have you ever had a chat with James Annan, MattStat?

      Here’s James TL;DR on Nic’s piece:

      Nic Lewis appears to be arguing primarily on the basis that all work on climate sensitivity is wrong, except his own, and one other team who gets similar results.

      http://www.climatedialogue.org/climate-sensitivity-and-transient-climate-response/#comment-901

    • Matthew R Marler

      Willard (@nevaudit): Have you ever had a chat with James Annan, MattStat?

      I did but our chat was short, about one of the unresolved issues, at one of the Joint Statistical Meetings.

      Nic Lewis wrote a rather clear presentation illustrating that the higher estimates of sensitivity depend on Bayesian methods with priors that assign non-negligible probability to high sensitivity values. He presented the references. If any one has substantial evidence in support of the high priors, that should be presented in any attempt at a rebuttal of Nic Lewis, imo. If the only evidence in favor of a non-negligible probability for an ECS to a doubling of CO2 in the range 8C – 10C is “expert opinion”, then we’ll reply with the quote from Feynman about science v “experts.”

      In “Principles of Planetary Climate” Raymond T. Pierrehumbert plumps for a value of 2C. With that as the median of a reasonable prior, the empirical evidence comes down on the side of a value less than 2; this is especially true if the prior includes negative values for ECS, which is possible on some of the much debated effects of clouds.

  102. Bengtsson needs to name those who attacked him.

    • Or else let’s get all FOIA on this.

      Release the clowns.

    • ‘I received emails from colleagues all over the world telling me it was a “questionable” group.

      ‘But what made me the most upset was when a colleague from the US resigned as co-author of a paper, simply because I was involved. … – Lennart Bengtsson

    • The Very Reverend Jebediah Hypotenuse

      willard (@nevaudit) | May 15, 2014 at 1:10 pm |

      Or else let’s get all FOIA on this.
      Release the clowns.

      http://www.desmogblog.com/foia-facts-5-finds-friends-gwpf

      Bruce Cockburn
      – Planet Of The Clowns –

      This bluegreen ball in black space
      Filled with beauty even now
      battered and abused and lovely

      And the waves roar on the beach like a squadron of F16′s
      Ebb and flow like the better days they say this world has seen

      Each one in our own heart
      Desperate to know where we stand
      Planet of the clowns in wet shoes

  103. I see the climate community is busy shooting itself in the foot yet again. They could have said great, let him convince the skeptics at the GWPF they are wrong and climate sensitivity is higher than they think. Everyone would be napping trying to read that story. Instead they create a huge story that they are intimidating and blacklisting a scientist. I can’t say I’ve ever seen a similar story about a scientist that has joined a too alarmist organization. Is any organization considered too alarmist?

    • Are there any “alarmist” organizations that have scientists as members?

    • Joseph, if you would be so kind as to detail which organizations you consider alarmist I’m sure we can find out. If you think none are I don’t see this conversation bearing any fruit.

    • You said: ” I can’t say I’ve ever seen a similar story about a scientist that has joined a too alarmist organization.”

      I assumed you had examples of scientists joining an “alarmist” organization

    • Joseph, it would be easy for me to point out organizations I think are too alarmist. You can’t think of one we might agree on? If you can’t that just answers my question. According to you there are no organizations that are alarmist much less too alarmist.

    • The Union for Concerned Scientists.

      In the leadership groups, I cannot find a scientist who works for the United States government. University scientists abound.

  104. The Very Reverend Jebediah Hypotenuse

    The “McCarthyism” drum-beat is so cute.

    It becomes deliciously ironic when one realizes that Bengtsson himself has been complaining about the evil socialists and communists for years, volunteering to help ship them off to North Korea.


    Det är ju synd att DDR försvunnit annars skulle man ha kunnat erbjuda enkelbiljetter dit för dessa vurmande socialister. Nu finns det ju tyvärr inte många renläriga länder kvar snart och jag tror väl ändå inte våra romantiska grönkommunister vill ha en enkelbiljett till Nordkorea. Men om intresse föreligger bidrar jag gärna till resan så länge det rör sig om en utresebiljett. Kanske man kunde ordna med en gallupstudie då det inte kan uteslutas att jag underskattat utresebehovet.
    LennartB

    http://www.klimatupplysningen.se/2014/01/23/grona-moten/#comment-361068

    All the expressions of moral outrage are sauce for the goose.

    Let’s call it the karma of hypocrisy.

    • Scott Basinger

      So I guess you’d probably agree, then, that the folks involved in Climategate deserved everything that they had coming to them too?

      Et tu, hypocrite?

    • The Very Reverend Jebediah Hypotenuse

      Oh yes – Those folks are still reeling from all the “skeptical” science that climate-science-invigilators flung at them.

      Many of them have even realized the profound error of their ways and have joined the GWPF. LOL.

  105. Matthew R Marler

    Here is a comment from Gavin Schmidt: “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.”

    “Faith” is mentioned three times. The perception of “acting in bad faith” is mentioned twice.

    I expect his view to be more warmly greeted among grant recipients than among taxpayers. Obviously I can’t tell for sure, but I think that the voting public in the US wants a much longer and more thorough public debate before the US devotes resources to the policies advocated by Gavin Schmidt, Alan Leshner, and James Hansen. I think the Schmidt quote will contribute to the “perception” that the “so-called scientific debate” is actually a debate about a religious dogma.

    • You can do more passively and aggressively than that, MattStat.

    • Matthew R Marler writes:

      I think the Schmidt quote will contribute to the “perception” that the “so-called scientific debate” is actually a debate about a religious dogma.

      That apparently seems to be the spin you want to put on Gavin Schmidt’s statements.

      However, the term “Bad Faith” comes from legal vocabulary and has a different meaning,

      Bad Faith

      The fraudulent deception of another person; the intentional or malicious refusal to perform some duty or contractual obligation.

      Bad faith is not the same as prior judgment or Negligence. One can make an honest mistake about one’s own rights and duties, but when the rights of someone else are intentionally or maliciously infringed upon, such conduct demonstrates bad faith.
      (Source: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/bad+faith)

      The term “bad faith” has nothing to do with religious beliefs. The opposite of “bad faith” is not “good faith” or religiously believing in something. Instead the opposite is sticking to the truth and to the facts.

      The same (deliberate?) misinterpretation of the term “bad faith” was done by the writer of an article in the National Review Online:
      http://www.nationalreview.com/article/378011/science-mccarthyism-rupert-darwall

      who claims, “Evidently the right to practice and discuss climate science should be subject to a faith test., was what Gavin demanded. This interpretation has been posted also at the GWPF:
      http://www.thegwpf.org/rupert-darwall-science-as-mccarthyism/

      And perhaps you took this yourself from one of the two sources.

      Now, one could ask, is this twisting of Gavin’s words, that he was asking for blind faith into science, even though his use of the term “bad faith” implies the opposite, he asks for sticking to the truth and to facts, is based on a lack of knowledge about the English language or is this itself an example for how a statement made by a climate scientist is twisted in bad faith, for the purpose to deliberately deceive the public?

    • Don Monfort

      I am with janny p p on this one. Gavin is talking about adhering to the Truth, as it is defined by the Almighty Most Sacred 97% Climate Consensus Dogma. Can I get an Amen!

    • Matthew R Marler

      Jan P Perlwitz: Now, one could ask, is this twisting of Gavin’s words, that he was asking for blind faith into science, even though his use of the term “bad faith” implies the opposite, he asks for sticking to the truth and to facts, is based on a lack of knowledge about the English language or is this itself an example for how a statement made by a climate scientist is twisted in bad faith, for the purpose to deliberately deceive the public?

      You certainly can ask what Gavin Schmidt really meant. For example, was he counseled by attorneys on the legal use of “bad faith”, and was that how he meant it?

      I was more interested in the “perception” of bad faith, where “the perceiver” was not defined. I do not perceive “bad faith” in GWPF, I perceive “counter point”. Maybe some day we can elaborate on the “evidence” of bad faith in GWPF, along with the “disinformation” of which you wrote.

    • So using the word “bad faith” implies bigotry.
      And now the problem is not exactly bad faith, but the perception of it.
      Let’s go Berkeley all the way down.

    • Rob Starkey

      “Groups perceived to be acting in bad faith should not be surprised that they are toxic within the science community,” Schmidt tweeted.

      Jan’s explanation of “bad faith” is accurate and religion has nothing to do with what Gavin’s comment.

      What is puzzelling is who he believes is acting in bad faith. Does he believe that scientists and engineers who disagree with his beliefs necessarily are acting in bad faith? What is the theortical motivation and benefit?

      On the other hand, it would seem that the claim of bad faith could be made against someone who has benefitted and would continue to do so if the premise of greatly harmful AGW is maintained. To intentionally state that you are an expert in the field of climate science, and have very high confidence that additional CO2 will greatly harm people and must be stopped to prevent the harms would seem to be intentionally misleading.

    • Perhaps, but Jean-Jacques Dessalines.

    • Matthew R Marler wrote on May 15, 2014 at 6:18 pm:

      You certainly can ask what Gavin Schmidt really meant. For example, was he counseled by attorneys on the legal use of “bad faith”, and was that how he meant it?

      I could but why should I? There isn’t any necessity for it. My default assumption is that he means what the words mean. I am not the one who is twisting his statement into something else.

      Maybe some day we can elaborate on the “evidence” of bad faith in GWPF, along with the “disinformation” of which you wrote.

      If you want an example, here is one:

      5. Since 1980 global temperatures have increased at an average rate of about 0.1C per decade. This is significantly slower than forecast by the vast majority of GCMs.

      (Source: http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2013/05/GWPF-Background-Paper.pdf)

      The assertion is not supported by the data for the global surface or tropospheric temperature at all. For the surface data, the trend of 0.1 C/decade claimed by GWPF is even more than two standard deviations below the trend estimates calculated from the data. It’s an untruthful statement. Is this deliberately done, i.e., is this a statement done in bad faith? Well, one would have to believe that the folks of the GWPF don’t even know how to calculate a temperature trend, if one wants to believe they did it in good faith.

    • Matthew R Marler

      Jan P Perlwitz: I could but why should I? There isn’t any necessity for it.

      You supplied the interpretation that Schmidt meant “bad faith” in the legal sense, not as common parlance borrowed from legalese. It was necessary that you do so because Dr Schmidt isn’t an attorney, and that wasn’t a legal document.

    • Jan, if you take the linear trend of UAH since 1980 you get about 0.1 C per decade. You can argue that is cherry picking the starting point but so what? Why is 1950 such a great starting date? Is it because it is cooler than 1940?

    • steven wrote on May 16, 2014 at 5:11 am:

      Jan, if you take the linear trend of UAH since 1980 you get about 0.1 C per decade.

      The trend for the UAH data set is 0.141 +/- 0.073 K/decade since 1980, not “0.1″
      (http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php)

      You can argue that is cherry picking the starting point but so what? Why is 1950 such a great starting date? Is it because it is cooler than 1940?

      Whether the year 1950 or the year 1940 doesn’t matter. The overall warming trend since then is statistically significant with more than nine standard deviations for both starting points.

    • Comparing climates at 99% confidence from interpolation of surface weather stations and from some wonky set of algorithms extracted from observations on a trio of satellites, one of which is thought to be leaking coolant:

      http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:191/mean:194/plot/uah/mean:191/mean:194

      UAH, so far as everything it might say about climate, backs (and strongly suggests underestimation of rise) the surmise from ground based stations.

      Since UAH cover includes areas of the globe we expect are warming more dramatically than the areas covered by surface stations, we should not be surprised, as Cowtan & Way have demonstrated, to find UAH indicating faster warming.

    • Matthew R Marler

      Jan P Perlewitz: The trend for the UAH data set is 0.141 +/- 0.073 K/decade since 1980, not “0.1″

      thank you for supplying the full confidence interval, which clearly includes 0.1. fwiw, 0.1 is the result of the standard rounding rule when rounding to the nearest tenths, which is about as accurate as you can be with a +/- 0.07 error estimate.

      That figure comports well with the oft repeated appx 1C per century over the last century.

    • Matthew R Marler | May 16, 2014 at 2:03 pm |

      Which would make it 2C per century currently, by the same reasoning.

      #Time series (uah) from 1978.92 to 2014.33
      #Selected last 384 samples
      #Least squares trend line; slope = 0.0158801 per year
      1982.33 -0.233279
      2014.33 0.274884

      So you can stop now.

    • Jan, where did the statistical significance argument come from? Did they make that argument about 1950 or 1940? What do you get when you take the linear trend from 1940? About 0.1 C/ decade?

    • steven | May 17, 2014 at 10:45 am |

      People who read graphs for a living find arbitrary choice of starting and ending points to be generally fruitless.

      The art of finding meaningful start and end points of periods for comparisons, independent of the subject matter of the graph, is well-studied.

      And you’re doing it wrong, though not by much, by one of the commonplace rules. Choosing a section of a curve containing exactly three local extrema (in this case maximum-minimum-maximum) has been argued as a sound practice.

      First we must persuade ourselves we’re looking at a simple curve uncomplicated by cyclic phenomena. Sadly, even with relatively prime filters we know that some of the components of global temperature are powerfully pseudoperiodic, so even though there are some fifty climate basins averaging out to a global mean we expect distortions in the curve even on spans beyond four decades. Happily, when we look at these plausible sources of distortion, we cannot confidently produce greater contribution than three percent, perhaps a fifth the strength of the influence we see from some specific types of volcanic eruptions.

      http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:101/mean:103/from:1940/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:191/mean:193/from:1940/plot/hadcrut4gl/last:792/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/last:660/trend

      If you’re appealing to the 99% confidence curve at 32-year smoothing, that would make the natural starting point 1948. To remove seasonal variability, choosing a multiple of 12 months back from present, one gets 792:

      #Time series (hadcrut4) from 1850 to 2014.25
      #Selected last 792 samples
      #Least squares trend line; slope = 0.0103472 per year
      1948.25 -0.2161
      2014.25 0.466816

      However, we note that there is an acceptable 95% CI for the 17-year filter with local extrema suggesting 1959 is a better starting year, or 660 months.

      #Time series (hadcrut4) from 1850 to 2014.25
      #Selected last 660 samples
      #Least squares trend line; slope = 0.0129169 per year
      1959.25 -0.191979
      2014.25 0.518452

      All of which is well and good, and from this framework we can’t suggest any value at one significant digit other than 1C/century.

      However, we also can take the length of the filter itself as a valid span, and in the last 384 months, the trend is 99% likely to be ..

      #Time series (hadcrut4) from 1850 to 2014.25
      #Selected last 384 samples
      #Least squares trend line; slope = 0.0160859 per year
      1982.25 0.0570101
      2014.25 0.571757

      That’s right: 2C/century, at one significant digit.

      We can do better if we account for the influence of volcano plumes in the stratosphere, too.

      http://berkeleyearth.org/volcanoes

      There have been some seventeen major volcanic eruptions in the past sixteen years, a remarkably high number for so brief a time. Ulawun, Chaitén and Merapi are plausibly likely to have suppressed temperature rise by about 0.3C in the past fourteen years.

      But why quibble? Global mean temperature, whether interpolated from surface weather station readings or computed from satellite measurements, constitute only one fiftieth of the consilient essential climate variable evidence all pointing the same direction.

    • Bart, as far as I’m concerned one person’s cherry picking is no more evil than another’s. Now, did you ever come up with that reference that shows Christy was a liar? You having read every paper written on boundary layer dynamics since 1950 that should have been an easy task and yet how long ago was that? I know you can based upon how much lecturing you did about people calling scientists a liar shortly thereafter Lets finish that argument before we start a new one, shall we?

    • steven | May 18, 2014 at 6:57 am |

      You’ll need to remind me; which particular lie of Christy’s are we talking about?

      There are rather a lot of stevens in the world, many of whom are credulous, and I simply don’t remember that particular exchange.

  106. Call it Quits

    and now, from the Penn State Eugenics Department . . .

  107. One of the ugliest aspects of this is the thought of presumably young climatologists heaping abuse on a 79-year-old because he thinks differently than they do.

    • Just think of all that hate mail and death threats which climate skeptics have sent to climate scientists over the years. Maybe climate scientists have got meaner as a result.

    • lolwot | May 15, 2014 at 4:21 pm |

      I was involved in academia long before Earth Science even included the word ‘climate’ in the curriculum.

      People were miserable back then, too. Heck, the older generations have forgotten more about being mean than the young one today could even imagine.

      If what Dr. Bengtsson faced was as far in excess of what an experienced academic might expect to the point it is reasonable for him to claim fear for his own safety, then that is serious indeed and we all ought to know about it.

      If not, then perhaps it might still be serious, and we ought judge it for ourselves in context of full disclosure to understand on balance the threat we all may face.

      However, on its face, it sounds mostly like Dr. Bengtsson is making stuff up, but now that he has cried wolf in this way, we all deserve a chance to see for ourselves the substance of the matter, for our own peace of mind.

      In case there’s a wolf.

    • Generalissimo Skippy

      Is there asymmetry between fringe nutcases nobody loves and fringe nutcases with the trappings of respectability and peer support?

    • Scott Basinger

      Probably the first time that I’m in complete agreement with Bart R. Good post.

    • Me as well

    • Don Monfort

      What “stuff” do you think that Dr. B has made up, barty? Is it OK now to reveal private emails that could embarrass the climate alarmist cabal, as they were embarrassed by the Climategate emails? Be careful, lest you get what you axe for, bartski.

    • Don Monfort | May 15, 2014 at 4:45 pm |

      So you say.
      Overall, I doubt it.
      Clearly, Dr. Bengtsson has rung a bell that cannot be unrung.
      Knowing this, we have all been put in a state that concerns us all.

      Putting the best face on it, Dr. Bengtsson’s been misquoted, or mistranslated, or his statements have been taken out of context.
      Up to now, we don’t even know that much.
      Plausibly, Dr. Bengtsson’s said exactly what he’s been reported as saying.
      Probably, he didn’t realize the furor his words would cause.
      Everyone now must wonder what exactly Dr. Bengtsson meant, in a scandal that now we all have a stake in.
      To resolve this, we need to see Lennart Bengtsson’s full disclosure communications regarding his joining and leaving the GWPF, to judge for ourselves.

    • We can’t stop talking about this until the GWPF have wrung every drop of propaganda out of it.

    • Don Monfort

      Dr. B doesn’t have to show us anything, barty. You can take him at his word, or not. I am guessing that he is not too worried about what you think. This looks to me like an elderly scientist with a long and distinguished career mistakenly/naively thought that serving on a little Academic Advisory Council was no big deal. Suddenly he becomes like some freaking James Bond villain, out to destroy the world. Does anybody believe that he expected to get so pilloried by his little vicious colleagues? He is not accustomed to such rough treatment from allegedly professional scientists and it’s aggravation that an 80 year old dude doesn’t need. It would have been amusing to see him tell them all to F@#K off. On his behalf, that’s the message I will convey to you, bartski.

    • Don Monfort,

      Extremely well said. I’m sure Dr. B is not used to being abused by a bunch of thug punk “scientists”. Kind of makes me ashamed as an American that most of them are from the USA.

    • Mark Silbert | May 15, 2014 at 6:40 pm |

      So.. you have a list of them?

      You know who they are?

      What they said?

      Then by all means, post it here.

    • Don Monfort

      I have the list, bartski. In fact I have the emails. I hacked D.r B’s computer and stole it all. However, I feel that is unethical to make public the stolen private emails of hardworking, ethical climate scientists. Don’t you agree, bartski?

    • Don Monfort | May 15, 2014 at 8:08 pm |

      Funny for reasons you do not realize.

      By all means, you should turn it over to the police or DA for investigation. I understand there’s this guy in Virginia who’d want to prosecute.

      Alternatively, you could encrypt it, make that public, and send the key to a few dozen trusted experts with a proven track record of discretion, so they could vet any inappropriate information before releasing it.

    • Don Monfort

      You are blubbering, barty. Try another angle.

    • Matthew R Marler

      Bart R: If what Dr. Bengtsson faced was as far in excess of what an experienced academic might expect to the point it is reasonable for him to claim fear for his own safety, then that is serious indeed and we all ought to know about it.

      If not, then perhaps it might still be serious, and we ought judge it for ourselves in context of full disclosure to understand on balance the threat we all may face.

      Besides making stuff up, a part of your text that I did not quote here, is the possibility that Dr Bengtsson over-reacted because he received much more criticism, more sharply worded, than he expected. Say, for example, it is the first time he ever had co-authors express a desire not to be co-authors any more; or others implying he had “sold out”. Maybe it gave him headaches and other symptoms and otherwise felt just awful, like say your first bad grade in college, or first argument with a thesis advisor. People get really miserable on those occasions, and the worry over long-lasting illness isn’t unusual. Another example is the endless acrimony of a divorce, where all of a sudden the parties feel wounded.

      Without knowing the exact wording of the communications, we can’t tell. I think your post should be taken seriously.

    • Don Monfort

      If you have taken anything in barty’s comments seriously, you have been manipulated.

  108. Lets not forget that this 10% AGW/Skeptic group appears to be enourmous. The other 90% dont give a @@@@ about the subject, fortunately probbaly because they dont see/feel climate change, especially teenagers LOL

  109. Oh dear looks like GWPF have tarnished another scientist’s reputation.

    I note that the GWPF alone have acted to push both the propaganda story that lennart was joining them and that he was leaving. I wonder if the GWPF exists for any other reason than to create meme soundbites in a bid to worm them into the tabloid media.

  110. A fan of *MORE* discourse

    lolwot contemplates “I wonder if the GWPF exists for any other reason than to create meme soundbites in a bid to worm them into the tabloid media.”

    Good point.

    All experienced scientists encounter criticism that is ignorant, unjust, irrelevant. No experienced scientist is unduly bothered … unfair criticism comes with the job.

    What *STINGS* is criticism that is *JUSTIFIED*.

    Common-Sense Conclusion I  Lennart Bengtsson is upset not because his scientific colleagues are wrong … but because they’re right.

    That’s why the denialist blog-o-sphere is frothing too … because Bengtsson’s critics are right.

    Common-Sense Conclusion II  A young scientist can say “Oh well … at least I learned something.” But Lennart Bengtsson is too old (and too experienced) to be so comforted … that’s why (justified) criticism hurts doubly.

    That’s obvious, eh Climate Etc readers?

    \scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

    • All experienced scientists encounter criticism that is ignorant, unjust, irrelevant. No experienced scientist is unduly bothered … unfair criticism comes with the job.

      I am an experienced researcher, and this comment is absurd.

      Most researchers are well equipped to handle technical criticisms. They are trained in mustering the necessary facts and logic to defend their position. But scathing personal criticisms from their peers, some of whom they might have considered respected colleagues, is altogether different. This they are not trained to handle, and it likely cuts as deeply as being attacked by an old friend.

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse

      A True Story

      Nobelist  Our paper that won the prize was REJECTED by Physical Review Letters.

      FOMD  How did that happen?

      Nobelist (cheerfully)  Because they are all IDIOTS at Physical Review Letters.

      MORAL Criticism that hurts scientists most, is criticism that’s true.

      The other kinds, not so much. The world ponders!

      \scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

    • MORAL Criticism that hurts scientists most, is criticism that’s true.

      Therefore anyone who is severly hurt by criticism and crowd mockery deserves it?

      Let’s keep the fortune-cookie philosophizing down to a dull roar.

    • ‘No experienced scientist is unduly bothered’

      You take it upon yourself to describe the feelings of all ‘experienced scientists’. Complete bollocks of course, criticism, and especially misinformed criticism, is intensely hurtful to people who take pride in their work and professionalism.

  111. Consider diplomacy. Bengtsson went to the other country but was recalled. No it’s not quite like that of course and I know little about his intent. A breaking off of diplomacy. From what I’ve read he would have made a good one.

    For various reasons these countries do not have official diplomatic relations with the United States:
    Bhutan
    Cuba
    Iran
    North Korea
    Taiwan (status of being a country is unclear)

  112. Heh, well now we know why there’s such a uniform 97% consensus. Good thing he didn’t donate to Prop 8 as well. He might have been beheaded on video by now.

    • “Heh, well now we know why there’s such a uniform 97% consensus”

      careful don’t admit that!

  113. I think it is safe to presume that Bengtsson is familiar with academic vitriol, perhaps even somewhat accustomed to it, and was not reacting to mere bitchiness on the part of other climate workers. He has, I further presume, received some communications that go beyond that, and that these have brought about his resignation from the GWPF. I am inclined to think that we are dealing with politics here, and that the professor is a victim of those who felt he threatened their existing levels of influence or those to which they aspire. If so, this could well prove as informative as Climategate in due course.

  114. Meanwhile, the “Great” continues to be removed from “Britain”:

    Carbon Price Floor – Commons Library Standard Note
    Published 14 May 2014 | Standard notes SN05927 Authors: Elena Ares
    Topic: Climate change, Coal, Energy, Environmental protection, Nuclear power, Oil, petrol and natural gas, Renewable energy, Taxation

    Fluctuations in the price of carbon in the form of EU ETS allowances have resulted in uncertainty for investors in low carbon technologies. This has contributed to a lower level of investment in these technologies, below what is required to meet UK carbon reduction and renewable targets.

    To address this, the Coalition Government committed to introduce a floor price carbon and published a consultation on carbon price support in December 2010. Following this it announced in the March 2011 Budget that it would be introducing price support via the Climate Change Levy and fuel duty with a target price of £30 per tonne of carbon dioxide in 2020. The floor price will start at about £16 per tonne. At the time of the announcement the trading price was around £15 per tonne, but by January 2013 it had fallen to under £4.

    The Government published its consultation in December 2010. This set out how the exemption from the Climate Change Levy for fossil fuels used to generate electricity would be removed. The Government proposed taxing fossil fuels at rates that took into account of their average carbon content.

    The Treasury published confirmed carbon prices three years in advance from April 2013, together with indicative prices up to 2017. These were due to rise every year until 2020, with all revenue raised retained by the Treasury. However in the Budget 2014 the Government announced that prices would be capped at £18 per tonne from 2016 to 2020 to limit the competitive disadvantage faced by business and reduce energy bills for consumers.

    Background on the Climate Change Levy is available in Library Standard Note SN/BT/235
    Download the full report
    Carbon Price Floor ( PDF, 11 pages, 144.1 KB)
    http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn05927/carbon-price-floor

    • I live near UQ, and my children variously have degrees in arts, science, engineering and medicine from it, but I can not deny that it is prone to parochialism and paranoia. Maybe I should saunter over and sort them out.

  115. The fact that one
    has to reach to figures
    like Idi Amin Dada
    for analogies
    tells you what
    the other side
    is turning itself into.

    The other side
    is either dark
    the left side
    which is sinister
    anyway.

  116. When climate skeptics engaged in an extraordinarily irrelevant attack on some scientists stuck on a ship in Antarctic ice I certainly saw through what they were trying to do.

    It might fool a proportion of the tabloid reading public, but it is naive to imagine scientists won’t hear about it and won’t see through it. What we don’t see is how many climate scientists saw through that and shared the insight with colleagues.

    Over the years the collective output of climate skeptics, all the attacks on surface records and accusing scientists of lying for funding, has probably been slowly shaping scientist’s perception of climate skeptics quite negatively.

    So when climate scientists and meteorologists hear about the GWPF and very quickly see a link to the aforementioned activity, it’s little wonder.

    • Indeed, lolwot.

      And Slobodan Milošević.

    • lolwot | May 15, 2014 at 6:42 pm
      When climate skeptics engaged in an extraordinarily irrelevant attack on some scientists stuck on a ship in Antarctic ice I certainly saw through what they were trying to do.

      You may have a point:
      http://www.thegwpf.org/media-glosses-irony-global-warming-scientists-trapped-antarctic-ice/

    • ceresco kid

      Those on the ship were the butt of jokes and playing the irony game. None of the skeptics had the power to disrupt their lively hood and I dont remember any physical threats or intimidation. Sad that you dont see the difference.

    • So when climate scientists and meteorologists hear about the GWPF and very quickly see a link to the aforementioned activity, it’s little wonder.

      Consensus Climate Scientists do quickly agree to the alarmism.

      The Meteorologists are strangely quiet. Silence does speak louder than words. People who agree with the alarmism do not hesitate to speak out.

      People who disagree with the alarmism are afraid to speak out because of the huge pressure to agree with the Green Alarmist Movement.

  117. Pol Pot

    and RC moderation.

  118. Ghengis Kahn.

    and Peter Gleick

    • I should point out that this is not a reference to my widely used nom-de-net Genghis Cunn.

    • re: Peter Gleick, yes the comparison is most informative. As I posted at Bishop Hill, Peter Gleick is still on the Editorial Board of ERL (Environmental Research Letters) after what he did with false representation to steal confidential documents, forging a document, etc. So such kinds of extreme unethical (and illegal) actions cannot diminish one’s standing among climate scientists. Gleick’s unethical behavior is the type of activity which should get someone removed from such a trusted and honored position in leadership of a journal.

      Yet, Dr. Bengsston, who by all accounts is an exemplary and ethical scientist, is the one facing widespread opprobrium among climate scientists merely for joining an “academic advisory” council.

      The climate science “community” is truly sick and depraved in its double-standard standards.

      That said, I do agree that comparisons to McCarthyism and worse political persecutions are over-wrought for the Bengsston matter, without further confirming details. It was Bengsston himself who applied the expression “McCarthyism” but we don’t yet know if there were specific threats, exclusion from his career, etc. I did imagine that Bengsston was referencing specific threats but if he himself says that the worst thing so far is one pending co-author withdrawing from a paper then the McCarthyism comparison (and others) would indeed go too far, IMHO. My own comment that McCarthy was less effective than climate scientists in ostracism (calling him a “lightweight”) was meant to reference the “worldwide” influence that Bengsston says this backlash has attained (McCarthy never had influence beyond US borders, so far as I know).

  119. Machiavelli

    and Chris Turney

  120. The Permian Mass Extinction.

  121. Generalissimo Skippy

    Bozo the clown and Rajendra Kumar Pachauri.

    Climate is either:

    1. an oscillatory system on a rising trend; or
    2. a deterministically chaotic system involving multiple equilibrium and abrupt transitions.

    The first suggests a residual surface warming that is quite modest – some 0.05 degrees C/decade. The second is much scarier in that temperatures – most likely ocean and atmosphere – are not increasing – or falling – for decades but that shifts beyond that are indeterminate.

    The first is patently absurd and the second is mainstream climate science. But this seems way beyond the pay grades of the buffoons and what we see instead is circling of the clown cars in defense of a hill of beans.

    • an oscillatory system on a rising trend; or
      2. a deterministically chaotic system involving multiple equilibrium and abrupt transitions.

      No such thing. not either of these. Climate is in the same bounds it has been inside of for eleven thousand years. It does go up and down, but it stays inside the same bounds. it does have some chaotic events, but it stays inside the same bounds. You have no actual data that disputes this.

      You may have Model Output that disputes this, but Model Output is not Data and it has been wrong for two decades.

    • Generalissimo Skippy

      I fear you have misunderstood the nature of deterministic chaos Herman.

    • Pope vs. Skippy arguing about climate– quite a night’s entertainment!

    • Generalissimo Skippy

      The world is still not warming so Herman is closer than Randy to the facts. The laughter is sounding very hollow.

    • Except of course that you are completely mistaken Skippy. But then you only realized in 2003 that latent heat fluxes are associated with surface temperature. How did you get a degree in hydrology without knowing this?

    • Herman Alexander Pope | May 15, 2014 at 10:09 pm

      An apparently bounded system:
      http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/A_Trajectory_Through_Phase_Space_in_a_Lorenz_Attractor.gif

      Reading what you’ve wrote, I am looking at ice and snow. I think you’re right for the most part with that.

    • Generalissimo Skippy

      Here is a pare from Judy – http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/pnas.pdf

      So in a sense Herman is right – although there is a lot more happening.

      Randy claims oceans are warming – I show him 2 recent studies showing that they are not and another that says that ARGO records are too short and too variable to say anything rational. That doesn’t even slow Randy down.

      If you combine it with ISCCP-FD, CERES, MODIS and Project Earthshine another picture emerges. I picked it in 2003 – although the details were a little scarce. My on public track record is a hell of a lot better than Randy’s and will continue to be so.

      http://www.researchgate.net/publication/233871224_Geomorphic_Effects_of_Alternating_Flood-_and_Drought-Dominated_Regimes_on_NSW_Coastal_Rivers

      This was the first time to my knowledge that the now familiar multi decadal patterns were recognized. It was almost a decade before the PDO was described or the 1976/77 Great Pacific Climate Shift was first discussed. I read it shortly after publication and it began an almost 30 year investigation of causes.

      So far from the hydrological cycle that seems well understood enough in it’s simple principle – the actual workings are a great deal more subtle.

      Randy is a serial pest who delights in pontificating about simplistic notions that are taken for granted in any sophisticated discourse. I have complained about baby physics quibbles distracting from a realistic understanding of complex, chaotic and non-equilibrium Earth systems. This is baby hydrology with no hint that he understands that in any detail.

    • “Randy claims oceans are warming – I show him 2 recent studies showing that they are not and another that says that ARGO records are too short and too variable to say anything rational.”
      —–
      There are no recent studies that show the ocean is NOT warming. Now you are just making things up Skippy, and rather sad and disgusting it is. For those of you who want the actual data and not Skippy’s fantasy physics, see:

      http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

      Really Skippy, get a grip. The climate system continues to gain energy without pause, and will very likely continue to do so for centuries.

      Now go back and tell us once more how you discovered that latent heat, rainfall, and surface temperatures are related. Amazing!

    • Generalissimo Skippy

      1. http://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/sod/lsa/SeaLevelRise/documents/NOAA_NESDIS_Sea_Level_Rise_Budget_Report_2012.pdf

      2. http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/people/gjohnson/OHCA_1950_2011_final.pdf

      3. http://www.ocean-sci-discuss.net/8/999/2011/osd-8-999-2011.pdf

      If you really want to know what the data can and can’t say – you can’t believe a word Randy says. Besides which – he is a serial pest with a penchant for extreme rudeness, a lack of a moral compass, exceedingly little wit, humour or wisdom or any smidge of an original idea. If I were 79 and gave a rat’s arse I might care.

    • Generalissimo Skippy

      The paper I linked to introduced ne to multi-decadal regimes.

      http://www.researchgate.net/publication/233871224_Geomorphic_Effects_of_Alternating_Flood-_and_Drought-Dominated_Regimes_on_NSW_Coastal_Rivers

      The observation that rivers changed form in the late 1970′s led to stratified analysis of flood records. The question is how and why rainfall regimes change abruptly on decadal scales. Not whether water bodies evaporate and plants transpire.

      To bring this back to evaporation and precipitation – of which I have forgotten much more than Randy has ever known – misses the point and is a sign of a trivial mind or a trifling intent. Perhaps both.

    • Geoff Sherrington

      Skippy,
      The references you gave earlier to sea level change, Such as Shuckmann La Trann 2011, have an important caveat that is ignored. Ignoring it causes all conclusions to be wrong.

      SLT2011 use the words “Under the assumption that no further systematic errors remain in the observing system,” the caveat about ocean propery measurement.

      Given that the oceans below 2000m are badly underinvestigated and the volumes shallower than this are only sketchily sampled, especially as to time, the caveat should be heeded. For example, one cannot eliminate deep temperature changes from hydrothermal venting or geodesic changes from effects such as the East Pacific Bulge -or the troublesome class of unknown unknowns.

      It is not scientific to promote narrow confidence limits a la Bindoff, when gross uncertainties have potential effects in half the ocean volume.

      Even my old Mum used to stir her soup before sipping, lest the deeper portion of the cup had a nasty hot or cold pocket remaining.

      It is school physics that thermal expansion studies of a volume of fluid must use the full volume of fluid, not just a convenient part.

  122. –> “Not the persecutory aspect, which is mild compared to real McCarthyism, ….”

    –> “Senator McCarthy was a lightweight compared to these Global Warmng Mullahs.”

    Yes, McCarthyism clearly isn’t enough. Even “reign of terror” is insufficient.

    The Alamo was a tea party in comparison. The killing fields just a walk in the park. The inquisition like an outing to Chuck E Cheese’s.

    Yup. Permian Mass Extinction it is. Anything less is just doesn’t paint the picture.

  123. JC comments. I will have much more to write about this in a few days.

    Yes please

  124. Anyone read about Brandon Shollenburger (sp?) being threatened with a lawsuit by University of Victoria? He apparently has the raw data from John Cook’s 97% paper.

  125. Arno Arrak

    Greenhouse warming. As Bengtsson pointed out it was more or less on the back burner until Hansen brought it up front in 1988. He showed thre US Senate a rising temperature graph, going from a low in 1880 to a high in 1988. That high point, he said, was the warmest temperature within the last 100 years. There was only a one percent chance that this could happen accidentally. Hence, there was a 99 percent probability that this warming was greenhouse warming, thus proving the existence of the greenhouse effect. And on the strength of this assertion, IPCC has been looking and finding greenhouse warming everywhere. But if you check his presentation in the Congressional Record you find that he included a non-greenhouse warming from 1910 to 1940 as part of his 100 year greenhouse warming. This warming alone accounts for more than half the warming of the entire twentieth century. It is not greenhouse warming because there was no isudden increase of carbon dioxide in 1910 when it started as required by laws of physics for initiating a greenhouse warming. The same conclusion comes from its sudden cessation in 1940 because you cant stop a greenhouse warming unless you remove all those absorbing molecules from the atmosphere. This means that we have to remove that warming segment from his 100 year warming. That leaves just a see-saw temperature curve above 40 degrees, consisting of 25 years of cooling followed by 23 years of warming. The contribution of the temperatures below 1910 is negligible. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to understand that no way can this remnant curve be used to prove the existence of the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect simply does not exist despite Hansen’s propaganda about having detected it. But no one checked his science and he has gotten away with this fiction for the last 24 years. As a result, IPCC climate models incorporate the greenhouse effect into heir code and lts use leads to such things as prediction of a non-existent warm spot at ten kilometer height. in the tropics. And use of the greenhouse effect for predicting current temperatures leads their million-line codes to predict a completely alternate reality as CMIP5 data demonstrate. In the longer term they predict the existence of an anthropogenic global warming we must all try to reduce by emission control. This is the most damaging claim because in the absence of the greenhouse effect there is no such thing as AGW. It is nothing more than a pseudo-scientific fantasy but we are told to expect it and fight it.

    • ceresco kid

      The period 1910-40 is the chink in the armor and is confirmed by the rise in sea level. There is no argument about the accuracy of the temps or sea level rise during this 30 year period that occurs with paleo records. To be convincing, the IPCC has to reconcile their theory with this 30 year period. Thanks for the discussion.

    • ceresco kid wrote on May 16, 2014 at 6:06 am:

      The period 1910-40 is the chink in the armor and is confirmed by the rise in sea level. There is no argument about the accuracy of the temps or sea level rise during this 30 year period that occurs with paleo records. To be convincing, the IPCC has to reconcile their theory with this 30 year period. Thanks for the discussion.

      It has been reconciled. There isn’t any substantial contradiction between the warming period 1910-40 and the explanations given by mainstream climate theory, as represented also with the IPCC report.

  126. Generalissimo Skippy

    There is one universal measure of science – the ability to make predictions.

    Where are the scientists who predicted the pause a decade or more ago? Not the climate models. Models literally have many divergent solutions. Small changes in inputs – data or couplings – produce solutions that diverge in unpredictable ways. The divergence problem due to sensitive dependence and structural instability. There is no theoretical justification for choosing between feasible solutions. The solutions are chosen arbitrarily from a family of solutions on the basis of subjective judgment – and the indications are that the arbitrary solutions are too warm.

    I predicted it – publicly and explicitly in 2007. But It had hit me like a truck in 2003 that the same processes producing decadal rainfall regimes had an impact on decadal surface temperature. Others were coming to the same conclusion at that time – I know from discussion and early research efforts.

    The warmists have such a record of being wrong and still insist they are right amidst wild post-hoc rationalization, sabre rattling, circling of the clown cars and attempts to stare down the abyss addled sarcasm. It seems only a matter of time before they break out the Kool-Aid.

    • Generalissimo Skippy

      … abyss (with) addled sarcasm…

    • Generalissiomo Skippy

      I do not predict the future, and, although I have my wishes, I can not predict that the warmists, who have a long record of being wrong and insist they are right amidst wild post-hoc rationalizations, saber rattling, circling of the clown cars and attempts to stare down the abyss, that in the end, they will not prevail. I fear that might makes right. Turning the tide of this climate battle has legions of monied people behind it, from Silicon Valley to Wall Street. There is a lot of skin in the game and the various climate convenient idiots from Columbia, Penn State, NASA and others will be trotted out with their academic nodding approval to wild and imaginative modeling outputs. The President of the United States surrounds himself with cloistered flagellates whose pain is to be felt by all. The poor, disenfranchised, and huddled massed, 2 billion of which live on less than $2/day, are the casualties of which one speaks about, but never to. Mine and your advocacy for inexpensive and abundant energy, conservation farming, and belief in the ingenuity of human kind, is lost on academic dolts, transparent in their malignant schemes of a sustainable future without a pathway that they themselves follow.
      Cold temperatures, darkening days of wind, rain, and, in the winter, snow, ever increasing energy costs, are the messages that resonate with the electorate and our hope for a better, rationale, and humane future. The doom and gloom of real every day life, unfortunately are the most likely messages to prevail, and for once and for all, end this non-sense. Dialogue seems to be wasted with the climate converted.

    • “But It had hit me like a truck in 2003 that the same processes producing decadal rainfall regimes had an impact on decadal surface temperature.”
      —–
      Uh, and you are a supposed hydrologist? Latent heat fluxes (as in evaporation and rain) are the primary way the atmosphere is heated, and most of that comes from the ocean. This has been well known for 50 or more years. But I suppose 2003 is better late than never for you to be hit by the “ton of bricks” that is common knowledge in climate science.

    • Generalissimo Skippy

      http://www.researchgate.net/publication/233871224_Geomorphic_Effects_of_Alternating_Flood-_and_Drought-Dominated_Regimes_on_NSW_Coastal_Rivers

      This was the first time to my knowledge that the now familiar multi decadal patterns were recognized. It was almost a decade before the PDO was described or the 1976/77 Great Pacific Climate Shift was first discussed. I read it shortly after publication and it began an almost 30 year investigation of causes.

      So far from the hydrological cycle that seems well understood enough in it’s simple principle – the actual workings are a great deal more subtle.

      Randy is a serial pest who delights in pontificating about simplistic notions that are taken for granted in any sophisticated discourse. I have complained about baby physics quibbles distracting from a realistic understanding of complex, chaotic and non-equilibrium Earth systems. This is baby hydrology with no inkling that he understands that in any detail.

    • Anyway, back to your comment Skippy. Why would it be so remarkable- hitting you like a “ton of bricks”– that rainfall and surface temperature dynamics are closely releted? They would have to be as latent heat is the primary means of heating the atmosphere. You seem to carry on at length about things that are supposedly big revelations but most people learn in freshman physics.

    • Generalissimo Skippy

      I predicted it – publicly and explicitly in 2007. But It had hit me like a truck in 2003 that the same processes producing decadal rainfall regimes had an impact on decadal surface temperature. Others were coming to the same conclusion at that time – I know from discussion and early research efforts.

      Warmists are rarely – if ever in my experience – noted for good faith, depth of knowledge, relevant training and long experience, civility or a lack of overweening confidence in the rightness and moral rectitude of their memes. What they are good at is circling the clown cars.

    • “the same processes producing decadal rainfall regimes had an impact on decadal surface temperature. ”
      —-
      Which has been fundamental ocean-atmosphere climatology for at least 50 years. Skippy being hit by this realization in 2003 is…oddly many decades behind the science.

    • Generalissimo Skippy

      ‘Although long considered implausible, there is growing promise for probabilistic climatic forecasts one or two decades into the future based on quasiperiodic variations in sea surface temperatures (SSTs), salinities, and dynamic ocean topographies. Such long-term forecasts could help water managers plan for persistent drought across the conterminous United States (1). The urgency for such planning became evident when much of the U.S. was gripped by drought in 1996 and again in 1999–2003, evoking images of the dry 1930s and 1950s.’ http://www.pnas.org/content/101/12/4136.full.pdf

      These same processes have an impact on surface temperature – suggesting the potential for non-warming for decades.

      Making things up is a central Randy characteristic. Contemptible but predictable. Bad faith seems to be the warmist métier.

  127. “JC comments. I will have much more to write about this in a few days.”
    I’m kinda surprised that someone who has put great effort in to trying to come across as the great middle ground voice of reason in the climate debate would choose to take sides and jump to assertions about who is right and wrong and who has acted with dignity in this matter. To me it seems you shoudl have taken a few more days, then written this “much more”, then made a conclusion. Poor old McCarthy probably thinks it was McCarthyism that got him in the end such is the blatant manipulation of words by the right at present.

  128. Surely as a well credentialled scientist you’d fully expect that when you join a group like this then your long term colleagues may let you know they think you’re on the wrong track. As an example, good friends will intervene if you descend in to alcoholism. Hopefully.

    • Too bad Einstein didn’t listen to his colleagues telling him his theory was bunkum.

    • Galileo too, jim2. Never forget.

      No one expects Galileo.

    • absolutely. But surely he considered his reasons before joining and felt they were sound and defensible. He’s 79… who cares what his colleagues think. I bet you einstein learned a lot from the feedback of his colleagues. I mean stand by your convictions my good man!

    • ceresco kid

      Mattb
      I dont want to sound condescending nor engage in psycho-babble but I am giving him a little break due to his age. I have no idea about his strength but from my own experience I dont have the mental or physical toughness I did 20 years ago. The things I was willing to rise to, including adversity, with great enthusiasm, I now just pass by with but a whimper. Age does some strange things that are difficult to understand until you get there. If this had happened in the 90s he may have thought it all through more thoroughly or just said to hell with everybody and not let it affect him at all.

  129. JudithCurry

    I’m in moderation? Pray tell, my penalty is clear, what is my offense?

  130. OT, but a fascinating account of Australian PM’s disintegration over the global warming issue. Having worked for Rudd, I was amazed that anyone could see him as PM. Read this and be similarly amazed.

    http://www.smh.com.au/insight/the-day-the-rudd-government-lost-its-way-on-climate-change-20140509-zr7fm.html#ixzz31MkrQQLI

  131. Talking about mind-boggling, Bengtsson’s response to his colleagues’ reaction to his joining GWPF strikes me as naive. What he failed to realize when making that move is that the two sides of the climate debate hate each other. Anyone doubting this merely needs to read the foregoing 500-odd comments to see just how intense that hatred is.

    GWPF’s position on global warming could not possibly be clearer. Bengtsson is the recipient of major prizes in meteorological research. Joining GWPF is for him a major change of alliances.

    If for example you are one of Napoleon’s medal-winning soldiers who decides to switch to the English side, you should expect the English to welcome you and the French to turn against you. To expect your former French colleagues to continue respecting you is naive in the extreme. You should be looking to the English for your moral support, not the French.

    Yet this is exactly what Bengtsson has done. He switched to the side that GWPF speaks for, yet expects the other side, the side that awarded him those prizes, to continue to respect him as though nothing had happened, as though there was no polarization in the climate debate!

    I’m fine with traitors so long as they realize they need to switch alliances–the other side doesn’t view them as a traitor. It is naive to expect to maintain friends on both sides when there’s a war on.

    • Vaughan,

      to equate this to war is, well, I can’t think of terms that are not disrespectful, which you do not rate. Maybe ridiculous. On ther other hand, that people do think this way is damning.

    • The difference between Neville Chamberlain and Winston Churchill is that Chamberlain was unable to accept that Germany was embarking on war with its neighbors. Those denying the extent of the polarization in the climate debate are as naive as Chamberlain.

    • David Springer

      Your description doesn’t sound much like science, Vaughn. It sounds like a tribal feud. Now consider how this looks to people on the outside of it who just want to know if dangerous climate change is real or hype? How do we respect the participants as scientists when they’re not acting like scientists? Climate change isn’t something that can be either demonstrated or falsified without waiting to see what happens. So folks have to trust in the calm, cool, objective nature of scientific inquiry. Absent that there’s simply no basis for trust.

    • Generalissimo Skippy

      Circling the clown cars and blowing raspberries is hardly the invasion of Poland. More Mack Sennett.

    • Matthew R Marler

      Vaughan Pratt: Talking about mind-boggling, Bengtsson’s response to his colleagues’ reaction to his joining GWPF strikes me as naive. What he failed to realize when making that move is that the two sides of the climate debate hate each other.

      My first response reading the letter from Bengtson was sadness. I can’t see how it can end happily for him. I have been working on different wording, and I think that your “naive” fits in. I think he was truly surprised by the response some colleagues of his had in reaction to something he himself felt was constructive.

      However, if you are correct that the “consensus” scientists feel a “hatred” toward the GWPF and other skeptical writers, that will strike a lot of people as “news”. “Consensus” scientists have tried to portray themselves as sober assessors of opposing views. If it is true that they have a “hatred” (neither you nor I has identified particular persons holding this “hatred”), their actions may qualify as “bad faith”, roughly equivalent to the “bad faith” Gavin Schmidt attributed to GWPF in the tweet that I quoted.

      Upon reflection, do you think that “hatred” is a good word to describe the attitude of either “side” toward the other? If federal employees and grantees really feel “hatred” toward their citizen-critics then they ought to be relieved of their positions and funding. Personally, I think they are more fearful than “hating”, but as everyone knows they often go together.

      I always look for your posts. Thanks for stopping by.

    • Matthew R Marler

      Vaughan Law: Those denying the extent of the polarization in the climate debate are as naive as Chamberlain.

      Isn’t this a “Godwin’s Law” moment? No one in this debate is analogous to Hitler, and nothing is analogous to the German armies that moved from Germay into the Sudetenland and thence into the rest of Czechoslovakia and into Hungary..

    • Vaughan

      Traitors? War?

      What is the matter with climate science? Is it unique in the sciences in thinking in this way?

      Is it because it is such a young and unproven branch of the sciences that it needs to take extreme attitudes to defend itself and forget the scepticism that should be at the heart of every scientist?

      tonyb

    • @DS: How do we respect the participants as scientists when they’re not acting like scientists?

      Excellent question. I leave it to those who read both Climate Etc. and RealClimate to make that call.

      @MM: Isn’t this a “Godwin’s Law” moment?

      Not until someone says the H word. ;) That technicality aside, let’s take Putin instead. His approval rating at home since April rose from 82.2% to 85.9% according to the All-Russian Center for the Study of Public Opinion (VTsIOM). This is a level that neither Bush nor Obama could achieve even by eliminating Bin Laden. Russians view themselves as peace-loving and the new regime in Kiev as a bunch of facist pretenders bent on stirring up trouble in Eastern Ukraine.

      You and I know better: the West loves peace and it is Putin that is stirring up trouble.

      These heated denials that there is any severely polarized dispute about global warming have the same character. Each side regards the other as the trouble maker. For example:

      @tonyb: What is the matter with climate science? Is it unique in the sciences in thinking in this way?

      Tony asks what the climate scientists are doing wrong. The unspoken premise here is that those contradicting the climate scientists are in the right.

      War has been based on propaganda of this kind for millennia. And why not? Why would anyone feel morally obligated to fight for the side that is in the wrong?

      There is no real war, says each side, just troublemakers on the other side disturbing the peace who need to be corrected.

    • @MM: Upon reflection, do you think that “hatred” is a good word to describe the attitude of either “side” toward the other?

      I was raised to write with four-letter words when available, but given the evident delicate sensibilities here I’d be ok with “profound disrespect.” ;)

    • Vaughan, “GWPF’s position on global warming could not possibly be clearer. ”

      Quite right. Here it is, from their website:
      “The GWPF does not have an official or shared view about the science of global warming – although we are of course aware that this issue is not yet settled.”

    • David Springer

      Hate, traitors, propaganda, war… is bloodshed next? Probably not a good idea to use that kind of language in the US given there are hundreds of millions of privately owned guns along with a tradition of using them to settle conflicts.

    • > to equate this to war is, well, I can’t think of terms that are not disrespectful, which you do not rate.

      Cleansing and fatwa may have been more advisable analogies to convey the proper image to an auditing crowd.

      That we think of Ibn Taymiyyah only shows how the other side
      is turning itself into.

    • > What is the matter with climate science? Is it unique in the sciences in thinking in this way?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_wars

      There are many others.

  132. Well i suppose yer can see seige mentality demonstrated.

    • Beth

      Siege mentality is just the right phrase.

      Its bad enough when sceptic attacks a warmist and vice versa, but when someone is attacked by their own ‘side’ for stepping out of line something extraordinary is happening. What has happened to rational scientific objectivity and enquiry?
      tonyb

    • > Siege mentality is just the right phrase.

      Siege mentality is a shared feeling of victimization and defensiveness – a term derived from the actual experience of military defences of real sieges.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_mentality

      What is the matter with climate blogs? Is it unique in the blogs in thinking in this way?

  133. Tony,
    r-s-o-&-e, like heat in the desert on a cloudless night – lost in space.

    beth the serf.

  134. A follow-up story is getting a lot of publicity in the UK today.
    The Times reports on its front page that a Bengtsson paper was rejected for being less than helpful to the cause – with obvious climategate echoes.
    The same story is also in the Telegraph and the Mail, though it’s unlikely to appear in the Guardian.

    • nottawa rafter

      Brits are getting a peek under the blanket. I doubt the US media will bother. Although the LA Times just got burned by not doing its homework when CA governor claimed LAX would be flooded from sea level rise. They finally found out at present rate it would take 45,000 years. After that episode, their ears might pick up by what is going on.

    • Indeed, The Times reports Bengtsson’s testimony.

      The links are also interesting:

      An editorial by Matt Ridley, who speaks of demonization.

      An article by Ben Webster, with a mugshot of Lord Lawson.

      Another article by Ben Webster, with a mugshot of Lord Lawson.

      An article by Sadie Gray, with a Getty image of polluting chimneys.

      An article by Jennie Booth, where we have Patchy and Christopher Field telling that climate change will hit food prices.

      What we read on The Times can only make us think of the Wandhama massacre.

  135. “Climate McCarthyism.” Pfffft. Sen McCarthy used the full force of govt to prosecute citizens on trumped up charges of treason. Nothing done to any scientist by any other group of scientists or policy wonks even comes close. While this dramatic victimization is entertaining (606 comments and counting!), it bears no resemblance to reality. Glad to see all you scientists have so much free time to grouse. Thank G-d for tenure, eh?

  136. Jan P Perlwitz | May 15, 2014 at 4:03 pm
    he asks for sticking to the truth and to facts, is based on a lack of knowledge about the English language or is this itself an example for how a statement made by a climate scientist is twisted in bad faith, for the purpose to deliberately deceive the public?

    What’s are the facts and the truth?
    The only facts I see are actual measurements, not the trash that comes from Global temperature models, which is at best an interpretation of facts, and GCM’s which are even further disconnected from reality. None of this is actual evidence of the cause of any warming, Hell prior to ~1973 most of the surface in Global temperature calculations isn’t even measured, even now most of the ocean, and a large part of land temperature isn’t measured.

    What I see is a lot of religious proselytizing being positioned as science.

    • Mi Cro wrote on May 16, 2014 at 8:40 am:

      What’s are the facts and the truth? The only facts I see are actual measurements, not the trash that comes from Global temperature models, which is at best an interpretation of facts, and GCM’s which are even further disconnected from reality.

      Everyone is a critique now, huh?

      This “trash” has been peer reviewed and published in the scientific literature, i.e., it is subjected to the scrutiny of the scientifc community. If it really was “trash” it would be weeded out.

      And now, tell me the bibliographic information of your peer reviewed scientific publications, where you think you have provided the evidence that all this “trash” can be scientifically refuted, and you have put it out in the open so it can be scrutinized by the scientific community.

      • Everyone is a critique now, huh?
        This “trash” has been peer reviewed and published in the scientific literature, i.e., it is subjected to the scrutiny of the scientifc community. If it really was “trash” it would be weeded out.
        And now, tell me the bibliographic information of your peer reviewed scientific publications, where you think you have provided the evidence that all this “trash” can be scientifically refuted, and you have put it out in the open so it can be scrutinized by the scientific community.

        Jan, what’s the annual temperature of Lat > 80N, and how many thermometers were used to produce that average?

        You can follow the link in my name if you’d like, and I’ve done the rather rare act of publishing all of my code so you can even see how I generate my data here.

      • Everyone is a critique now

        The word you are looking for is critic. Critique is the production of a critic.

    • philjourdan on May 19, 2014 at 10:58 am

      The word you are looking for is critic. Critique is the production of a critic.

      Thanks. You are right. Noted. The little pitfalls of a non-native language.

      • I am aware of English not being your native tongue, and thus the comment. However, if that is the extent of your English language problems, you have mastered the language very well (better than most native speakers).

  137. Jan P Perlwitz | May 16, 2014 at 2:41 am
    So, please tell me what data from the models and from measurements were compared and based on what metric and criteria have you determined that the models and the empirical data were diverging in a way that it would scientifically justify the conclusion, which you are asserting here. Or in what scientific publication can I find this?

    Why even NASA can compare Model output to actual surface measurements and see it’s lacking.
    Validation of the GISS GCM: A Study of Ocean and Climate Modeling.
    Evaluation of the GISS GCM ModelE.

    • Straw man argument.

      No one has claimed that the models were perfect and got everything 100% right everywhere. My quote referred to the assertion that there was an increasing discrepancy between observed global temperatures and model simulated global temperature used for the global warming predictions presented in the IPCC report.

      The presented links don’t say anything regarding this assertion.

      • 100% right everywhere

        As best I can tell they get nothing right unless it’s averaged out over continent sized areas.

  138. David Appell Takes implied threats to a new level:

    Question for Republican presidential candidates who are also climate change deniers ([...]):

    Why, if military researchers are saying climate change is already a theat [sic] to the security of the United States, are you igoring [sic] this threat and even denying climate change is taking place?

    Just who are these “military researchers” he’s quoting? From the “about” section of their site:

    The Center for Naval Analyses is a federally funded research and development center serving the Department of the Navy and other defense agencies. Center analysts pioneered the field of operations research and for more than 70 years have addressed issues that relate to military preparedness, operations evaluation, systems analysis, foreign affairs, strategic relationships, humanitarian operations and logistics. [my bold]

    It’s a “non-profit research and analysis organization” that gets some money from the USGov. IOW a left-wing(?) “think tank”. And on the basis of this report, one of our regular McCarthyite persecutors would accuse a bunch of US presidential candidates of being “Threat[s] to National Security”.

    • From Paul Waldman at the Washington Post: Where the 2016 GOP contenders stand on climate change I can’t find any instance of a candidate denying “climate change”. In the lead-off paragraph we have a typical statement:

      Yesterday, Florida senator Marco Rubio all but announced that he’ll be running for president in 2016. In the process, he offered some vigorous climate denialism that should please the Republican primary electorate: “Our climate is always changing,” he said, noting that human activity has nothing to do with it and that any efforts to do something about it “will destroy our economy.” [my bold]

      From the actual linked news story announcing the candidacy:

      Rubio — who expressed deep skepticism about whether man-made activity has played a role in the Earth’s changing climate — told Karl he doesn’t believe there is action that could be taken right now that would have an impact on what’s occurring with our climate. [my bold]

      “I do not believe that human activity is causing these dramatic changes to our climate the way these scientists are portraying it … and I do not believe that the laws that they propose we pass will do anything about it, except it will destroy our economy,” he said.

      Can you spell “bait and switch”?

      A difference of political opinion WRT how to deal with “climate change” is turned into a “threat to national security”. This is typical of the behavior attrributed to McCarthy.

    • AK,

      People such as Appell and fan are very good at taking a minute piece of data and blowing it up into something that appears much bigger.

      As a member of the United States Naval Institute I receive their monthly publication. Climate Change is not a topic found frequently within its pages. The bulk of articles which do relate to it cover scenarios involving open water access in the Arctic. I’ve also seen the ocassional piece on green fuels, though if memory serves, the last was presented by Sec Nav – ie political leadership, not military.

      A couple of years ago the Navy was asked to provide a research paper on the impacts of global warming. Significant to this paper was the part where they were ordered to use projections from climate models in the 4 – 6 degree C range. And like good officers they said Aye, Aye and followed orders. The resulting paper was less the result of their informed opinion and more the product of what they were ordered to produce.

      Efforts to increase use of biofuels by the government and in particular by the armed forces are educational. The GAO did a detailed study and concluded what the service chiefs already knew – that the programs were basically a waste of money. They produced alternative fuels at an average of 10 times the cost, produced them at such a low volume that it was mot possible to meet even the modest objectives of the program and required development of costly logistical infrastructure to support a different fuel type. As the saying goes, amateurs talk strategy and tactics. The pros talk logistics and finance.

  139. From the article:

    This week, they got it. The great M. Stanton Evans has finally released Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America’s Enemies . Based on a lifetime’s work, including nearly a decade of thoroughgoing research, stores of original documents and never-before-seen government files, this 672-page book ends the argument on Joe McCarthy. Look for it hidden behind stacks of Bill Clinton’s latest self-serving book at a bookstore near you.

    Evans’ book is such a tour de force that liberals are already preparing a “yesterday’s news” defense — as if they had long ago admitted the truth about McCarthy. Yes, and they fought shoulder to shoulder with Ronald Reagan to bring down the Evil Empire. Thus, Publishers Weekly preposterously claims that “the history Evans relates is already largely known, if not fully accepted.” Somebody better tell George Clooney.

    The McCarthy period is the Rosetta stone of all liberal lies. It is the textbook on how they rewrite history — the sound chamber of liberal denunciations, their phony victimhood as they demean and oppress their enemies, their false imputation of dishonesty to their opponents, their legalization of every policy dispute, their ability to engage in lock-step shouting campaigns, and the black motives concealed by their endless cacophony.

    The true story of Joe McCarthy, told in meticulous, irrefutable detail in “Blacklisted by History,” is that from 1938 to 1946, the Democratic Party acquiesced in a monstrous conspiracy being run through the State Department, the military establishment, and even the White House to advance the Soviet cause within the U.S. government.

    In the face of the Democrats’ absolute refusal to admit to their fecklessness, fatuity and recklessness in allowing known Soviet spies to penetrate the deepest levels of government, McCarthy demanded an accounting.

    Even if one concedes to on-the-one-hand-on-the-other-hand whiners like Ronald Radosh that Truman’s Secretary of State Dean Acheson didn’t like communism, his record is what it was. And that record was to treat Soviet spies like members of the Hasty Pudding Club.

    Rather than own up to their moral blindness to Soviet espionage, Democrats fired up the liberal slander machine, which would be deployed again and again over the next half century to the present day. In hiding their own perfidy, liberals were guilty of every sin they lyingly imputed to McCarthy. There were no “McCarthyites” until liberals came along.

    Blacklisted by History proves that every conventional belief about McCarthy is wrong, including:

    – That he lied about his war service: He was a tailgunner in World War II;
    – That he was a drunk: He would generally nurse a single drink all night;
    – That he made the whole thing up: He produced loads of Soviet spies in government jobs;
    – That he just did it for political gain: He understood perfectly the godless evil of communism.


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

    • Jim,

      I and others have made similar points but your post was very complete. Thanks.

      We’re dealing with generational disconnect as well which is sort of sad, the Cold War reality as well as the leftist dogma and mythology captured in “McCarthyism” just doesn’t resonate and carry enough follow-up interest. The other day reading the National Review a headline stupidly used the term as well. The word is now in the lexicon not just with the liberal coding but as a generic term. This conversation is sailing over numerous heads for many reasons at this point.

      You realize how much actual history is lost over time. My son came home one day and asked about the Battle of Midway, he was 8 at the time. The teacher explained the battle occurred in 1943. A trivial error in the modern world? That’s only a tip of an iceberg of collective memory loss of course, I was thankful in retrospect that he (the teacher) even knew there was a “Battle of Midway”. A substantial population at this point has no idea who Joe McCarthy was, what decade or topic it remotely relates to, that there was a Cold War or traitors associated to it in the U.S.. Forget the subliminal liberal coding some of us are referencing here in Dr. Curry’s and the MSM usage of the term, they have no idea at all. The basic background information is so lost the propagandized value of the term “McCarthyism” is outdated as the “Che” tee-shirts found in their closets. It’s cruel irony in many way. Of course Dr. Curry should know better and probably did. Was it a consolation bone thrown to her political peers? Was it thoughtless casual use of the modern lexicon term? Was it a needle at conservatives by false flagging a political I.D. behavior? Was it a way of getting attention (or flattering) of liberal AGW advocates by labeling them according to their own inner fantasies about what is “really bad”? Calling them right wing hysterics (according to the mythology of what McCarthyite means in liberal culture code) is about as sure fire a way to wake up editors at the NYTimes and rest of the MSM etc.

      On the lighter side, I suggest you see the “Lego Movie” which sums up it all very well in one brief quip. This I saw with my youngest son now age 11, a character is describing a the corporate profile of the all inclusive evil world ruling corporation that is cleverly transportable to World Government symbolism as well, appeasing conservative and liberal stereotypes at the same time. As part of long list of corrupt enterprises in the profile; “We make all history books and voting machines”. A substantial amount of the adults roared in laughter so I have no doubt the idiotic liberal coding of the term “McCarthyism” whether Dr. Curry uses it or the NYTimes or sadly the National Review is more fully understood at least by many. We are now a society that knows propaganda inside and out.

      The joke and messaging is on who exactly?;

      http://www.zazzle.com/joe_was_right_t_shirts-235776305882192698

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse

      jim2 rehabilitates Joe McCarthy “Every conventional belief about McCarthy is wrong

      Ed Cray’s General of the Army: George C. Marshall, Soldier and Statesman — as commended by by US Marine Corps Commandant’s Professional Reading List — tells a mighty different story about Joe McCarthy, isn’t that right jim2?.

      General Marshall was praised by Winston Churchill as the architect of victory in WWII, and Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson closed the war by writing to Marshall a letter of thanks that concluded:

      “I have seen a great many soldiers in my lifetime, and you, sir, are the finest soldier that I have ever known.”

      In self-serving contrast, Joe McCarthy smeared Marshall on the Senate floor as follows:

      How can we account for our present situation unless we believe that men high in this Government are concerting to deliver us to disaster? This must be the product of a great conspiracy, a conspiracy on a scale so immense as to dwarf any previous such venture in the history of man.

      A conspiracy of infamy so black that, when it is finally exposed, its principals shall be forever deserving of the maledictions of all honest men.

      Who constitutes the highest circles of this conspiracy? About that we cannot be sure. […] It is when we return to an examination of General Marshall’s record since the spring of 1942 that we approach an explanation of the carefully planned retreat from victory.

      Architect of victory over the Axis, architect of post-war reconstruction, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize.

      That McCarthy despised Marshall says much about *BOTH* men.

      That’s the plain record of history, and common-sense too, eh jim2?

      \scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

    • Once for a paper, I had to choose a book from a list. I chose “The Crucial Decade.” It was basically about McCarthy. After reading it, I thought him to be horrible. I was bamboozled by the liberal academic running the class. Or perhaps it was she bamboozled at her turn. At any rate, it was a “well researched” book. Just wrong.

    • Fan – McCarthy had his reasons for dissing Marshall. We are too far removed from history to say McCarthy was wrong. The link below lists his reasons, but in order to understand them, you have to have detailed context, which probably neither you nor I have.

      http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1951mccarthy-marshall.html

  140. Lots of Bengtsson news this morning. Those in the US who are just waking up are recommended to check the last few posts at Bishop Hill.
    - Coverage in The Times, Telegraph and Mail
    - IOP have published one of the reviews of Bengtsson’s rejected paper.

  141. The Bengtsson news is being featured in the upper left corner on Drudge.

  142. Eli covers Bengtsson c. ERL:

    The Editors of Environmental Review Letters are as mad as hell and ain’t gonna take it anymore from Lennart Bengtsson, the GWPF and the Times of London. The Times, of course, interviewed Lennart Bengtsson right after he resigned from the GWPF advisory board. In support of his persecution complex, Lennart dropped a small bomb about how a paper of his had been rejected by ERL because, according to the Times, “Research which heaped doubt on the rate of global warming was deliberately suppressed by scientists because it was “less than helpful” to their cause, it was claimed last night.”

    The IOP and the ERL editors have gone nuclear, releasing the entire referee’s report, quite a long one, with the agreement of the referee.

    http://rabett.blogspot.ca/2014/05/even-editors-are-as-mad-as-hell-at.html

    But Denizens must go read our beloved Bishop, and perhaps also think of the “Hellenization” of the Bulgars.

    • Bengtsson has a different opinion than the reviewer, obviously.

    • “Summarising, the simplistic comparison of ranges from AR4, AR5, and Otto et al, combined with the statement they they are inconsistent is less then helpful, actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of “errors” and worse from the climate sceptics media side. ”

      Simplicity is elegance.

    • jim2 wins the internets.

    • You forgot the next sentence, Cap’n:

      > One cannot and should not simply interpret the IPCCs ranges for AR4 or 5 as confidence intervals or pdfs and hence they are not directly comparable to observation based intervals (as e.g. in Otto et al).

      Think of Sultan Abdülhamid II.

    • “You forgot the next sentence, Cap’n:”

      Nope. If you can “simply” interpret AR4 and AR5 as having any resemblance to the real world observations then they shouldn’t exist. That is kind of the point Willard. The IPCC is simply not useful.

    • It is very helpful that the reviewer points out that climate models can’t be expected to reproduce, well … , the climate. Very helpful.

    • The reviewer also points out that the so-called “observation” methods are really a simplistic model too, e.g. with one global parameter representing sensitivity and another for global ocean mixing, and these methods are expected to underestimate ECR. If so, it is wrong to compare apples and pears as he says, especially if you are not going to go to the trouble of explaining how they might be expected to be different. It seems this paper was not useful because it made no distinction between the methods, and just made criticisms based on the bottom line, which anyone could do in an opinion piece without adding to the science. The journal is not the place for shallow opinion pieces. You have newspapers and blogs for that.

    • Yep, Jim D, using data in science is really stupid.

    • Cap’n -

      How’s it going?

      I seem to recall you objecting to oversimplified claims in the past. Do I have that wrong?

    • “I seem to recall you objecting to oversimplified claims in the past. Do I have that wrong?”

      Claims are different than explanations. Repeating a failing simply claim is pretty stupid. If you have a simple “explanation” for something that happens and it is not easily challenge, then you are on to something. Having to constantly defend a failing “simple” explanation borders on insanity.

    • jim2, don’t be fooled by the term “observations” when it is also a simple model that is used to get ECR from them. Really there is no ECR from observations alone. You need a model to do that conversion. Bengtsson and Schwartz used observations in a more direct way here, similar to Lovejoy, and got sensitivities of 2 C per doubling for 1970-2010.
      http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/33753/1/Climate_Sensitivity.pdf
      Which Bengtsson paper are you going to believe?

    • “What a paper with this message should have done instead is recognising and explaining a series of ‘reasons’ and ’causes’ for the differences.”

      Translation – It’s not fair to point out how contradictory our “consensus” assessments are without providing excuses and rationalizations for our inability to be consistent.

      “In the same way that one cannot expect a nice fit between observational studies and the CMIP5 models.”

      Translation – Same with GCMs. No fair just pointing out the divergence between the scary forecasts of the models, and the mundane reports of a “pause.”

      These cannot be allowed because both “open[] the door for oversimplified claims of ‘errors’ and worse from the climate sceptics media side.”

      Oh no. The dreaded climate skeptic media. Can’t have them publicizing blatant, embarrassing errors in our work. Funny that media impacts are part of the scientific review of an article submitted to a scientific journal. Actually, it’s not funny at all. Just par for the course.

      Proving the consensus is wrong on the science is not an advance of science. Only a defense of “over simplified errors” (like a 15+ year pause, Mannian statistical incompetence, etc.) is an “advance.”

      “…in our view did not provide a significant advancement in the field.”

      I wonder what skeptical papers would “advance” the science according to these true believers rabid defense of the “science?”

      Maybe the rabbit knows. Has ERL ever published a paper that argued against the CAGW consensus?

    • “Proving the consensus is wrong…” should be – Presenting evidence the consensus is wrong…”

    • You forgot Obama, GaryM.

      We must think Obama.

    • Jim D wrote:
      Bengtsson and Schwartz used observations in a more direct way here, similar to Lovejoy, and got sensitivities of 2 C per doubling for 1970-2010.

      They did not. They obtained *lower bounds* on TCR (1.5 C) and ECS (2.0 C). Big difference.

    • One bit of data that is fairly reliable is that we’ve had about 0.8 C warming over 160 years. While CO2 is 43% higher, and moving higher exponentially now. It’s difficult to get excited about that.

      http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/trend

    • jim2 wrote:
      One bit of data that is fairly reliable is that we’ve had about 0.8 C warming over 160 years. While CO2 is 43% higher, and moving higher exponentially now. It’s difficult to get excited about that.

      Which on its own says nothing about TCR or ECS. It’s a straw man argument.

      In fact, to a first approximation it implies a transient climate response of 2.0 C:
      http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2012/03/better-way-to-calculate-climate.html

      Nor does it change that you misrepresented the Bengtsson and Schwartz paper.

  143. yes Willard, the distinguished ERL which maintains unethical thief and forger on their Editorial Board, that ERL?

    Forgive us if most here may not ERL editors as any paragons of ethics and sound judgment.

    • my sentences were supposed to read “unethical thief and forger Peter Gleick”

      and

      “may not regard ERL editors”

      damned iPad touchscreen, can’t type too lightly

    • The Times, Skiphil. That is all. You’re welcome.

      Now, you must think about Muhammad Al-Munajid, because the other side makes you do it.

  144. This story is pretty much a Swedish literacy test. Bengtsson has been traveling the road to denial for many years in his native land. He just finally got there in English a week or two ago

  145. A fan of *MORE* discourse

    Marcus Aurelius teaches  “If any man despises me, that is his problem. My only concern is not doing or saying anything deserving of contempt.”

    Advice by Marcus Aurelius, approbation by FOMD.

    Conclusion  Lennart Bengtsson’s unhappiness arises because the GWPF’s ideology-driven anti-science practices deserve contempt … and Lennart Bengtsson was disgracefully oblivious to the GWPF’s contemptible practices.

    It’s not complicated, eh Climate Etc readers?

    \scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

    • Fan

      Marcus Aurelius had lots of interesting thoughts, many of which are more appropriate than the one you selected.

      This is one that Lennart Bengtsson might feel more appropriate to his circumstances than your example;

      “When another blames you or hates you, or people voice similar criticisms, go to their souls, penetrate inside and see what sort of people they are. You will realize that there is no need to be racked with anxiety that they should hold any particular opinion about you.”

      We can indeed look into their souls and see what sort of people they are that can turn on an elderly distinguished colleague and bring him to despair and fear because he dares to uphold the ethos of science as articulated in the motto of the Royal Society

      “Nobody’s word is final.’

      I am genuinely sorry that whilst practising your complex intellectual gymnastics that you appear in the process to have lost your moral compass.. Presumably you will no longer feel it appropriate to quote morality at the rest of us via the words of Wendell Berry or the Pope at us?

      tonyb

    • David L. Hagen

      Bullying to Bias Science
      Reality check – by personal experience on the front lines, Roy Spencer writes:

      Lennart Bengtsson being bullied by colleagues is only the latest example of bad behavior by climate scientists who have made a deal with the devil. They have exchanged their scientific souls for research grants, prestige, and easy access to scientific journals to publish their papers. . . .
      Some of us (Christy, Lindzen, myself and others) have put up with many years of unfair treatment by a handful of activist gate-keeping colleagues who stopped our papers from being published or proposals from being funded, sometimes for the weakest of reasons.
      Sometimes for entirely made-up reasons.

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse

      tonyb foresees [wrongly] “Presumably you will no longer feel it appropriate to quote morality at the rest of us via the words of Wendell Berry or the Pope at us?”

      LOL … today’s FOMD-lessons-from-history are from Winston Churchill, Henry Stimson, and George Marshall, by way of the USMC Commandant’s Professional Reading List.

      History shows us remarkable overlap in these disparate sources, TonyB … after all, the USMC’s first commandant was a fighting Quaker!”

      \scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

    • You realize you are a socialist ideologue? The AGW advocacy agenda is steep in it.

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse

      cwon14 avers “You realize you are a socialist ideologue?”

      If I am, then so is every USMC Commandant who has ever held that office. Because history teaches plainly, that socially, politically, economically, and morally, the US Marine Corps ranks among the truly great socialist institutions of history.

      General Victor Krulak’s celebrated meditation Why does the US need a Marine Corps?” is commended to the attention of Climate Etc readers. (full text here)

      Thank you for your thought-provoking query regarding the social, historical, political, economic, and moral foundations of socialist institutions, cwon14!

      \scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

  146. David L. Hagen

    The Bullying of Bengtsson and the Coming Climate Disruption Hypocalypse
    Roy Spencer details further peer review gatekeeping bias/climate science corruption.

    Some of us (Christy, Lindzen, myself and others) have put up with many years of unfair treatment by a handful of activist gate-keeping colleagues who stopped our papers from being published or proposals from being funded, sometimes for the weakest of reasons.
    Sometimes for entirely made-up reasons. . . .
    I have talked to established climate scientists who are afraid to say anything about their skepticism. In hushed tones, they admit they have to skew the wording of papers and proposals to not appear to be one of those “denier” types.. . .
    Politicians can fix this . . . by telling the funding agencies that some percentage (say, 20%) of their climate research funding must go toward studying the 800 lb gorilla in the room: Natural sources of climate change.

    • David

      That is exactly the question I asked at a climate Conference hosted at Exeter University with many of the great and good from the IPCC there.

      I was given such an inadequate reply to my question that it encouraged others to come to me afterwards to discuss it.

      Natural variability: the 800lb gorilla increasingly certain that the Emperor standing in front of it isn’t wearing any clothes…

      tonyb

    • hmmm.

      Imagine that. Editors and reviewers stopping papers from being published for reasons that the authors don’t agree with.

      Second only in global catastrophe to the Permian Mass Extinction.

      And wait until Judith gets a hold of Roy for advocating specific policies. She absolutely hates that. This ain’t going to be pretty.

    • “Politicians can fix this?”

      Seriously?

      Politicians are running the show. The IRS attacked non-profits who were feared to be exercising their right to free speech in elections in 2012. The Obama/Holder Justice Department is prosecuting some obscure video maker as part of their covering up their malfeasance in Benghazi. He was held and prosecuted for immigration law violations, by the administration that has released over 36,000 illegal immigrants who had actually been commited of crimes, among them aliens convicted of violent crimes. They are prosecuting Dinesh D’Souza for making an accurate video about Obama’s past, under the guise of alleged campaign finance violation.

      These are the politicians who can fix this?

      The only people who can fix the government that is assaulting their various constitutional rights, is the voters. The “scientists” are doing exactly what they are supposed to do.

    • Don Monfort

      Little joshie recently heard something about the Permian Mass Extinction, so he randomly mentions it in his recent silly comments.

    • David L. Hagen

      Joshua & GaryM
      Current “climate science” is an “argument from ignorance” as evidenced by 96% of 34 year model projections exceeding actual temperatures.
      You can only identify anthropogenic contributions after you fully model natural components.
      Politicians control source funding.
      People elect politicians.
      Speak up for TRUTH and against this obvious corruption so that
      ” this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.” Abraham Lincoln

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse

      David L. Hagen advocates “Climate research funding must go toward studying [...] natural sources of climate change.”

      It’s good to see that David L. Hagen is advocating what James Hansen and colleagues have been strongly publicly advocating for the past several years!

      It is remarkable and untenable that the second largest forcing that drives global climate change remains unmeasured. We refer to the direct and indirect effects of human-made aerosols.

      The Glory mission (Mishchenko et al., 2007a), which was expected to begin operations this year, would have measured the aerosol direct forcing, as it carried an instrument capable of measuring polarization to an accuracy about 0.1 percent. However, launch failure caused loss of the satellite, which failed to achieve orbit.

      A replacement mission is being planned with launch expected in the 2015-2016 time frame. Such detailed composition-specific global aerosol measurements will be essential to interpret changing planetary energy balance. Presently the net effect of changing emissions in developing and developed countries is highly uncertain.

      Perhaps this year’s mega-el-Nino will end the troposphere “pause” and politically stimulate a penny-wise yet pound-foolish US Senate to restore NASA’s earth-observation satellite programs to full vigor, emphasizing especially observation of cloud-effects and aerosol-effects … just as David L. Hagen and James Hansen *BOTH* (responsibly) advocate.

      Good on `yah, David L. Hagen and James Hansen!

      \scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

    • David L. Hagen wrote on May 16, 2014 at 12:21 pm:

      Joshua & GaryM
      Current “climate science” is an “argument from ignorance” as evidenced by 96% of 34 year model projections exceeding actual temperatures.

      That is not scientific evidence. No scientific paper, no peer review. Just opinion in a blog, without any scientific standards that must be upheld. Unfortunately, it is also deceitful rubbish what is presented in the graphic by Spencer. Spencer has chosen to align the model data with the observations for a start year, where the observations exhibit a positive anomaly compared to the trend line, which is about 0.1 deg. C as far as I can see from graphical representations. The model simulations, being different realizations of a chaotic system do not have their warm and cold anomalies in the same years as the observations. Latter are only a single realization of all possible realizations of the natural chaotic system. When the alignment point is a year with a warm anomaly in the observations, an artificial warm bias equal to the magnitude of the warm anomaly will be introduced into all the model data for all years following the year of the alignment. With a cold anomaly in the observations as alignment point, it would be the other way around.

      If Spencer had aligned models and observations properly he could not have made the (false) assertion that more than 95% of the models had over-forecasted the observed warming trend since 1979.

    • David L. Hagen

      Fan
      1) Need accurate satellites AND ground data Nigel Fox of NPL shows that current satellites have at least 10x HIGHER error or uncertainty than is currently available.
      Far better to spend $ on good data than on unvalidated models with very little prediction skill!

      2 Need a Red Team to “kick tires” and fix the models – and develop statistical methods of quantifying ALL significant natural climate change parameters!

      See The Right Climate Stuff for a common sense professional approach.

      Jan
      From the simple plain unadulterated scientific method, If the model does not fit the data, the MODEL is WRONG.

      That IS scientific evidence – presented by the world class climate scientist Dr. Roy Spencer, under oath to the Congress, under penalty of perjury. “STATEMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE
      Roy W. Spencer, PhD
      Earth System Science Center
      The University of Alabama in Huntsville
      Huntsville, Alabama 35801
      18 July 2013″

    • David L. Hagen

      Jan
      Your “explanation” does not hold up to examination.
      For quantitative details on the plain unadulturated obvious climate bias see: Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit:
      IOP: expecting consistency between models and observations is an “error”

      The reviewer stated that IPCC ranges in AR4 and AR5 are “not directly comparable to observation based intervals”: . . .
      Thus, the “error” (according to the publisher) seems to be nothing more than Bengtsson’s expectation that models be consistent with observations. Surely, even in climate science, this expectation cannot be seriously described as an “error”. . . .
      However, when AR5 was released, I noted that there was negligible literature available to AR5 about the discrepancy between models and observations, leaving IPCC in a very awkward position when it came for assessment. I noted that journal gatekeeping had contributed to this dilemma – both Lucia and coauthors and Ross and I had had submissions about model-observation discrepancies rejected. The Bengtsson rejection seems entirely in keeping with these earlier rejections.
      Given the failure of the publisher to show any “error” other than the expectation that models be consistent with observations, I think that readers are entirely justified in concluding that the article was rejected not because it “contained errors”, but for the reason stated in the reviewers’ summary: because it was perceived to be “harmful… and worse from the climate sceptics’ media side”.

  147. Tonyb,
    I always look for your comments as sensible and often technically rewarding. Now Marcus Aur discussion points are also insightful. It is sad that a distinguised scientist can be bullied into resignation from a forum that may have allowed him to bring some balence into the polarized arguments. One can see some sea level rise, a long slow thaw and numerous elements of evidence of natural climate impacts. But we may also be on the verge of a new regime by carbon emissions. Temps have gone up fast in the last 40 years but have then stalled. These are real big uncertainties and instead of debating in a civilized manner the dialogue degenerates to name calling and manipulation of editorial fasheion. I always look for your comments and appreciate them.
    Scott

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse

      Speaking as one whose views differ notably from TonyB’s — particularly in regard to the relative weight of thermodynamical-principles-versus-historical-record — please let me say (along with many) that

      “I always look for your [TonyB's] comments and appreciate them.”

      Good on `yah, TonyB!

      \scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

    • Fan,
      That was nice.
      Scott

  148. pokerguy (aka al neipris)

    Of course ERL is going to defend itself vigorously. Did you expect a sobbing mea culpa? My question is, does anyone….anyone at all….Bueller?…Bueller?…find themselves defending the party inimical to their world view?

    What a coincidence.

  149. All this is quite surprising, since Bengtsson is the epitome of scientific sobriety. Denizens have verified that he never engages in stealth advocacy:

    I think the best and perhaps only sensible policy for the future is to prepare society for change and be prepared to adjust. In 25 years, we’ll have a world with some 9 to 10 billion people that will require twice as much primary energy as today. We must embrace new science and technology in a more positive way than we presently do in Europe. This includes, for example, nuclear energy and genetic food production to provide the world what it urgently needs.

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/meteorologist-lennart-bengtsson-joins-climate-skeptic-think-tank-a-968856.html

    One has to think of Gorta Mór.

  150. Dr. Bentgsson, the thought police are at the door and won’t leave before they’ve given you some tough love.

    • More fine hysteria.

    • ‘McCarthyism’, ‘thought police’, “bullying’, ‘intimidation’ etc etc

      All over what seems to be some pretty tepid comments.

      Mass mania? For sure.

    • Sorry Michael –

      This was meant for your amusement – wouldn’t want you to miss it:

      http://judithcurry.com/2014/05/14/lennart-bengtsson-resigns-from-the-gwpf/#comment-556341

    • Scientists outside Western academia have likened global warming to the ancient science of astrology. Obviously, there are financial and political reasons among Leftists to take a consensus of opinion among numerologists seriously and to them the ends justify the means which is why the fascism of Western academia signals that Mao’s red shirts are coming next.

    • Don Monfort

      This is really cute. Little joshie providing a link to another of his own inane comments, so his fellow smarmy troll mikey doesn’t miss it. Now you give joshie a link to one of your brilliant contributions that he might have missed, mikey. Clowns.

    • Thanks for reading, Don. As always. I can’t tell you how much it means to me.

    • Don Monfort

      I still find you despicably amusing, joshie. But it’s wearing thin. Barty is not as broadly comical as you, but he’s a lot more interesting His intellect and dignity are in tatters, but at least one can tell he used to be somebody. I empathize with barty. You, I don’t care about at all.

    • Don Monfort | May 16, 2014 at 2:13 pm |

      Wrong again.

      B.A.R.T. in R was never anybody.

      Bart R is just Bayesian Additive Regression Trees coded in the R programming language.

      What is Don Monfort, other than always wrong?

    • Don Monfort

      You are confused, barty. You are not an acronym. You are a silly blog character that has past it’s expiration date. Is this the way you want to go out, barty?

    • Michael,

      Let’s agree that the McCarthyism analogy is over the top. Do you have any issue or concern as a result of Prof Bengtsson’s decision and comments?

    • Joshua,

      Reign of terror?

      That’s pearl-clutching on steroids.

      I am suitably amused.

    • tim,

      Yes.

      His original decision was incredibly ill-considered.

      He really thought that no one would feel that their objectivity would be at risk by his overt politicization, and hence would not want to be associated with that?

      People pointed this out to him – he could could have had the courage of his convictions and stuck by his decision, but he caved and resigned, demonstrating that he hadn’t really thought it through very well.

      And to make it worse, instead of just shutting up and getting on with it, he decided to be a drama queen.

      GWPF, being the unethical, PR hacks that they are, were only too happy to use, and add to, Lenny’s embarrassment to their own ends.

    • Waggy,

      Keep on Godwin-ing.

    • Hyper-hysteria.

      Another inglorious episode for ‘climate scepticism’.

      • What is the definition of a continual ratcheting down in science of principles, morals, ethics, honor, integrity and respect for truth… hyper-screwed or just another day in the public-funded dropout factories?

    • Michael,

      Carrying much of a chip against GWPF?

      You have likely heard of the old saying about walking in another man’s shoes before passing judgement. It might do you some good to revisit that concept. You don’t have a clue about what occured, just opinion. And in an absence of information, someone such as Prof Bengtsson deserves the benefit of doubt. Instead you jump to the worst interpretation.

    • The GWPF is mightily feared. They are changing the policy conversation in Great Britain, oh, and the rest of its old Empire.
      ==============

  151. Dude – “reign of terror,”

    http://judithcurry.com/2014/05/14/lennart-bengtsson-resigns-from-the-gwpf/#comment-553748

    Don’t forget the “reign of terror.”

    Don’t ever forget the “reign of terror,”

  152. More on crushing Bengtsson, e.g., crushing dissent from within, from highly knowledgable scientists whose credentials are excellent:

    1. Bengtsson is far more distinguished than I had known. He is the former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology; winner of the 2005 Descartes Research Prize; and winner the 2006 World Meteorological Organization IMO Prize. I can certainly understand why people who don’t want to have any dialogue on climate issues, perhaps because they think that would be too dangerous, would possibly plant uneeded doubts, would certainly NOT want a person this distinquished to lead the path to greater dialogue. Let’s burn him at the stake. If we were to discuss things with him collegially, he might turn out to be correct! That would harm the message!

    2. Bengtsson recently had an article on climate sensitivity rejected. It was supposedly rejected because of errors. It appears that the “errors” may have had to do with expecting models and obseverations to be data that reasonably and scientifically could and should be compared:

    http://climateaudit.org/2014/05/16/iop-expecting-consistency-between-models-and-observations-is-an-error/#more-19225

  153. Uh. Oh.

    Look at this quote from Bengtsson:

    ==> “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””

    So, Bengtsson is one of those “climate scientist activists” who advocates specific policies?

    Imagine the hundreds of comments we’re about to read from “skeptics” denouncing Bengtsson for his activism. “Skeptics” just hate “climate scientists activists”

    The onslaught will be starting in 3….2….1…

    And I’m quite sure that in Judith’s next post about Bengtsson, she will denounce him for his activism. Right after she denounces Roy for his:

    ==> “Politicians can fix this . . . by telling the funding agencies that some percentage (say, 20%) of their climate research funding must go toward studying the 800 lb gorilla in the room: Natural sources of climate change.”

    Or maybe she’ll devote separate posts, one criticizing Bengtsson for his “climate scientist activism” and one criticizing Spencer for his “climate scientist activism?”

    Because if there’s one thing we know for sure, it’s that Judith always applies the same criteria on both sides of the aisle. She has written many times of her disdain for “climate scientist activism.” Nothing selective about her standards. Nosirreebub.

    Man, I’m sure that she’s really going to tear new ones for Roy and Lennart.

    The only question is when.

    • Bad Andrew

      Joshua,

      Kids in the neighborhood don’t wanna play kickball this afternoon?

      Oh that’s right, you are righteously saving the planet now so you can watch Disney later. ;)

      Andrew.

    • Not saving the planet, Bad. I leave that kind of thinking for “skeptics” who think that they’re saving us from a “reign of terror.”

      Motivated reasoning has been around since the dawn of man. Nothing I can do will change that in the least.

      And besides, the game was called off due to the heavy rain. I would have played anyway, but the other guy’s mothers wouldn’t let them play.

    • pokerguy (aka al neipris)

      Joshua loves the smell of authoritarianism in the morning, as long as it’s the right kind. Even the NYT’s, the very belly of the beast,t has a column today about what’s going on in our universities…

      http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/16/opinion/egan-the-commencement-bigots.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

      I like this one even better

      “Christine Lagarde is the latest ritualistic burning of a college-commencement heretic.”

      http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304547704579562101291725062

    • –> “Joshua loves the smell of authoritarianism in the morning, ”

      hmmm.

      –> ““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”

      and

      –> ““Politicians can fix this . . . by telling the funding agencies that some percentage (say, 20%) of their climate research funding must go toward studying the 800 lb gorilla in the room: Natural sources of climate change.”

  154. “Not saving the planet, Bad.”

    Oh. I thought climate change was a big deal.

    Misunderstanding.

    Andrew

    • Bad -

      I think that climate change (due to ACO2) is potentially a big deal. That seems to me to be what the science says, to the extent I can understand it. But it’s not a sure thing. That’s why scientists use tools like confidence intervals.

      The misinterpretation of my perspective that you just made is one that “skeptics” make quite frequently. That’s why I put “skeptic” in quotes – because they are clearly not reading with a skeptical eye.

      But even there, anyone who is reasonably skeptical would know that nothing that I do or don’t do will impact upon the trajectory of the influence of ACO2 on the climate. Nothing that you’ve ever read me write would suggest otherwise. Once again, stop thinking like a “skeptic.” Rip those quotation marks from your identity.

    • “nothing that I do or don’t do will impact upon the trajectory of the influence of ACO2 on the climate”

      Music to my ears, Joshua.

      Tell your friends.

      Andrew

    • Let’s see if Josh can engage in a honest discussion.

      Josh – “I think that climate change (due to ACO2) is potentially a big deal. ”

      Tim – agreed. Now lets get to how it might be a big deal and the probability it happening.

      Josh – “That seems to me to be what the science says, to the extent I can understand it. But it’s not a sure thing.”

      Tim – It is important to distinguish between what scientists say and how well supported their statements are by factual evidence. One reason to be wary of “activist” scientists. I do find it reassuring that you believe it is not a sure thing.

      Josh – “That’s why scientists use tools like confidence intervals.”

      Tim – Not sure this is relevant. And if for the sake of the discussion we agree that it is, don’t we want to have a strong confidence in those confidence levels? If I’ve gathered anything from the debate it is that many top reseachers in the field have a competence in statistical analysis that, while well above mine, still leaves a lot to be desired.

      Josh – “But even there, anyone who is reasonably skeptical would know that nothing that I do or don’t do will impact upon the trajectory of the influence of ACO2 on the climate.”

      Tim – Good start. Now take the next step. Anyone who is reasonably skeptical or reasonably capable of simple arithmatic would know that there is little anyone can do to impact the trajectory of ACO2 emissions, let alone their influence on climate. And for me this is a key differentiator between people honestly interested in the issue and those with an agenda (or blinded by their fanaticism).

      So what do we do? For starters we don’t do the following:
      – argue over terms and names (this applies to all parties, not just one side)
      – take useless stands on issues such as Keystone
      – pedal scare stories, particularly the kind that have zero support from the data (i.e. extreme weather).

      Instead I suggest we:
      – question everything we hear or read, unless it comes from someone with a track record for being proven correct.
      – be aware of those who cry wolf all the time
      – distinguish between science by model and science by data (noting that modelling is a useful tool, but one with significant limits).

    • Remarkable. You’ve made something useful of Joshua’s contributions.
      =========

  155. I don’t mind scientists having an opinion about what to do about climate change issues, e.g., sequestration, nuclear, wind, solar etc. Why not? They are citizens as well as scientists. They are entitled.

    What matters most to me is whether they try to silence other scientists, or whether they are open to a dialogue.

    • John -

      So you think it is just fine for scientists to be “activists,” is that right?

      So you think that the argument commonly made by “skeptics,” and often made by Judith – that scientists being advocates for policies is destructive to the scientific process – is not a valid argument?

      If so, then why do you suppose that we find that argument made so frequently? Why do you think that so many “skeptics” feel so differently than you about climate scientist being “activists?” Do you think that it might be because of an intolerance for the opinions of others? Do you think that it is analogous to McCarthysism – that kind of intolerance? Do you think that they apply their standards w/r/t “activism” equally?

      Lot’s of questions, eh?

    • Joshua, please don’t be an attack dog on me, I’m not spoiling for a fight.

      Yes, I do agree that scientists who advocate for specific policies do hurt the scientific process. If people don’t like the policies, they may think the science isn’t good, either, for starters. And people might think that scientists who advocate for specific policies are injecting themselves into areas they don’t know much about, which again may harm their scientific credibility.

      But please look at what I said: I said I didn’t mind their having an opinion, that is their right. I can have this viewpoint, and also have the viewpoint that they will have more credibility if they keep it to themselves.

    • John –

      I’m not attacking you. I am critiquing your argument. They aren’t the same.

      So, what matters to you most is that people should not try to “silence” other scientists.

      So how do you interpret it when Judith and my much beloved “skeptics” criticize scientists, vehemently, over and over, for expressing their opinions through activism? Isn’t that intolerance? Isn’t that a form of silencing? Is your argument that it’s ok to have an opinion, and perhaps to express an opinion (although expressing that opinion will undermine their credibility), but it isn’t ok for scientists to act upon their opinions?

      –> “Yes, I do agree that scientists who advocate for specific policies do hurt the scientific process. If people don’t like the policies, they may think the science isn’t good, either, for starters. And people might think that scientists who advocate for specific policies are injecting themselves into areas they don’t know much about, which again may harm their scientific credibility.”

      So let’s look a those statements by Bengtsson and Spencer. Has their credibility been undermined because they expressed their opinions? Do you think that they are hurting the scientific process? If not, why not?

      And again, how do you explain the selectivity in which scientist activists are criticized by “skeptics” for their advocacy for specific policies?

      Sorry for all the questions. But if you could at least address that last one, seeing as how I’ve asked it twice now.

    • A fan of *MORE* discourse

      Joshua avers “scientists being advocates for policies is destructive to the scientific process”

      Climate Etc readers may wish to reflect upon Naomi Oreskes’ 18-minute lecture Scientific Consensus and the Role and Character of Scientific Dissent,” which was given as the summary lecture (at 8:07:10 of the video) of last week’s Pontifical Academy workshop Sustainable Humanity, Sustainable Nature: Our Responsibility.

      Conclusion Policy-advocacy by scientists possibly may be destructive, yet history shows us plainly that it can be a creative destruction … the valuable dissolution of willfully ignorant politics.

      That’s common-sense, eh Joshua?

      \scriptstyle\rule[2.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}\,\boldsymbol{\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}\,\heartsuit\,{\displaystyle\text{\bfseries!!!}}\,\heartsuit\,\overset{\scriptstyle\circ\wedge\circ}{\smile}}\ \rule[-0.25ex]{0.01pt}{0.01pt}

    • Fan -

      What you quoted were not my words, but it was from where I quoted someone else.

    • You are wasting your time John.

      Josh isn’t interested in a honest discussion. Look at how he makes up a point by turning your point regarding activist scientists on its head.

  156. Joshua, criticism is what makes the scientific world go round. Someone writes an article in Nature, others look at it, then write their own article of rebuttal. Eventually, one viewpoint or the other is satisfactorily demonstrated. This is process is ongoing right now, with regard to the issue of whether a comet exploded over North America at the start of the Younger Dryas, and was responsible for extinction of many megafauna. Here’s the latest, this one finding that the theory is unjustified:

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/05/140513113605.htm

    The contending scientists on either end of this fight probably find it hard to talk to each other at coctail parties, but for almost everyone else, this is simply a scientific debate. If National Geographic or some leading group of paleontologists asked a proponent researcher from one side or the other to join a committee, there wouldn’t be organized efforts to say that so-and-so cannot possibly be appropriate, and we will osracize anyone who continues to invite or associate with him or her. That seems to be the difference between most science debates, on the one hand, and what has happened to Bengtsson, the former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology; winner of the 2005 Descartes Research Prize; and winner the 2006 World Meteorological Organization IMO Prize.

    Judith is critical of aspects of science, but she doesn’t demonize people. She argues science on the merits.

    The vociferousness ad hominem attacks on Pielke Jr., Bengtsson, and Judith, are very different than scientific criticism. See:

    http://www.newrepublic.com/node/116887/

    Here is part of that linked article:

    “His subsequent attack on me has him serving not as science advisor to the president, but rather wielding his political position to delegitimize an academic whose views he finds inconvenient. We academics wouldn’t stand for such behavior under George W. Bush and we shouldn’t under Barack Obama either.”

  157. Generalissimo Skippy

    Jan P Perlwitz on May 16, 2014 at 10:48 am:

    I do not understand what you mean with “choosing” a solution.

    ‘AOS models are members of the broader class of deterministic chaotic dynamical systems, which provides several expectations about their properties (Fig. 1). In the context of weather prediction, the generic property of sensitive dependence is well understood (4, 5). For a particular model, small differences in initial state (indistinguishable within the sampling uncertainty for atmospheric measurements) amplify with time at an exponential rate until saturating at a magnitude comparable to the range of intrinsic variability. Model differences are another source of sensitive dependence. Thus, a deterministic weather forecast cannot be accurate after a period of a few weeks, and the time interval for skillful modern forecasts is only somewhat shorter than the estimate for this theoretical limit. In the context of equilibrium climate dynamics, there is another generic property that is also relevant for AOS, namely structural instability (6). Small changes in model formulation, either its equation set or parameter values, induce significant differences in the long-time distribution functions for the dependent variables (i.e., the phase-space attractor). The character of the changes can be either metrical (e.g., different means or variances) or topological (different attractor shapes). Structural instability is the norm for broad classes of chaotic dynamical systems that can be so assessed (e.g., see ref. 7)…

    AOS models are therefore to be judged by their degree of plausibility, not whether they are correct or best. This perspective extends to the component discrete algorithms, parameterizations, and coupling breadth: There are better or worse choices (some seemingly satisfactory for their purpose or others needing repair) but not correct or best ones. The bases for judging are a priori formulation, representing the relevant natural processes and choosing the discrete algorithms, and a posteriori solution behavior.’ http://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709.long

    ‘Lorenz was able to show that even for a simple set of nonlinear equations (1.1), the evolution of the solution could be changed by minute perturbations to the initial conditions, in other words, beyond a certain forecast lead time, there is no longer a single, deterministic solution and hence all forecasts must be treated as probabilistic.’

    Of course you don’t. That’s the problem.

  158. Generalissimo Skippy

    Jan P Perlwitz on May 16, 2014 at 10:48 am:

    I do not understand what you mean with “choosing” a solution.

    ‘AOS models are members of the broader class of deterministic chaotic dynamical systems, which provides several expectations about their properties (Fig. 1). In the context of weather prediction, the generic property of sensitive dependence is well understood (4, 5). For a particular model, small differences in initial state (indistinguishable within the sampling uncertainty for atmospheric measurements) amplify with time at an exponential rate until saturating at a magnitude comparable to the range of intrinsic variability. Model differences are another source of sensitive dependence. Thus, a deterministic weather forecast cannot be accurate after a period of a few weeks, and the time interval for skillful modern forecasts is only somewhat shorter than the estimate for this theoretical limit. In the context of equilibrium climate dynamics, there is another generic property that is also relevant for AOS, namely structural instability (6). Small changes in model formulation, either its equation set or parameter values, induce significant differences in the long-time distribution functions for the dependent variables (i.e., the phase-space attractor). The character of the changes can be either metrical (e.g., different means or variances) or topological (different attractor shapes). Structural instability is the norm for broad classes of chaotic dynamical systems that can be so assessed (e.g., see ref. 7)…

    AOS models are therefore to be judged by their degree of plausibility, not whether they are correct or best. This perspective extends to the component discrete algorithms, parameterizations, and coupling breadth: There are better or worse choices (some seemingly satisfactory for their purpose or others needing repair) but not correct or best ones. The bases for judging are a priori formulation, representing the relevant natural processes and choosing the discrete algorithms, and a posteriori solution behavior.’ http://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709.long

    ‘Lorenz was able to show that even for a simple set of nonlinear equations (1.1), the evolution of the solution could be changed by minute perturbations to the initial conditions, in other words, beyond a certain forecast lead time, there is no longer a single, deterministic solution and hence all forecasts must be treated as probabilistic.’

    Of course you don’t. That’s the problem.

    • Generalissimo Skippy wrote on May 16, 2014 at 2:58 pm:

      [...]
      ‘Lorenz was able to show that even for a simple set of nonlinear equations (1.1), the evolution of the solution could be changed by minute perturbations to the initial conditions, in other words, beyond a certain forecast lead time, there is no longer a single, deterministic solution and hence all forecasts must be treated as probabilistic.’

      Is this something you just have learned? Congratulations. When I studied at the university, I gave presentations about this to my fellow students. Perhaps, one day, you will produce something in real science, not just on photobucket.

      Of course you don’t. That’s the problem.

      I love you too.

    • Generalissimo Skippy

      ‘More famously, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report (21) shows the spread among climate models for global warming predictions. One of its results is an ensemble-mean prediction of ≈3°C increase in global mean surface temperature for doubled atmospheric CO2 concentration with an ensemble spread of ≈50% on either side. The predicted value for the climate sensitivity and its intermodel spread have remained remarkably stable throughout the modern assessment era from the National Research Counsel (NRC) in 1979 (22) to the anticipated results in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (foreshadowed, e.g., in ref. 3) despite diligent tuning and after great research effort and progress in many aspects of simulation plausibility. An even broader distribution function for the increase in mean surface air temperature is the solution ensemble for a standard atmospheric climate model produced by Internet-shared computations (23), but there is a question about how carefully the former ensemble members were selected for their plausibility.

      In each of these model–ensemble comparison studies, there are important but difficult questions: How well selected are the models for their plausibility? How much of the ensemble spread is reducible by further model improvements? How well can the spread can be explained by analysis of model differences? How much is irreducible imprecision in an AOS?

      Simplistically, despite the opportunistic assemblage of the various AOS model ensembles, we can view the spreads in their results as upper bounds on their irreducible imprecision. Optimistically, we might think this upper bound is a substantial overestimate because AOS models are evolving and improving. Pessimistically, we can worry that the ensembles contain insufficient samples of possible plausible models, so the spreads may underestimate the true level of irreducible imprecision (cf., ref. 23). Realistically, we do not yet know how to make this assessment with confidence…

      Sensitive dependence and structural instability are humbling twin properties for chaotic dynamical systems, indicating limits about which kinds of questions are theoretically answerable. They echo other famous limitations on scientist’s expectations, namely the undecidability of some propositions within axiomatic mathematical systems (Gödel’s theorem) and the uncomputability of some algorithms due to excessive size of the calculation.’ http://www.pnas.org/content/104/21/8709.long

      Photobucket? Is there a problem with reproducing figures from peer reviewed science?

      Perlwitz responds with a repetition of the quote from Julia Slingo and Tim Palmer – people who actually have some credibility in the field – a reference to his poor benighted students and a personal slur. Let’s go with the idea that Perlwitz has zilch credibility.

    • Generalissimo Skippy

      Oh sorry – he once gave a presentation on ‘this’ to fellow students. Not that he has students – thankfully.

      Impressive credentials I think not.

    • Generalissimo Skippy wrote on May 16, 2014 at 5:15 pm:

      Perlwitz responds with a repetition of the quote from Julia Slingo and Tim Palmer – people who actually have some credibility in the field – a reference to his poor benighted students and a personal slur. Let’s go with the idea that Perlwitz has zilch credibility.

      You poor victim of a personal slur, which you did not provoce at all. You model case of politeness.

      As for my “credibility”.

      “Full Definition of CREDIBILITY
      1: the quality or power of inspiring belief
      2: capacity for belief ”

      (Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/credibility)

      So, you want to be a devote follower of someone who has “credibility”. Can’t you think for yourself?

      I let my arguments here speak for themselves and for my intellectual capacity. I stand with my real name for it, including for the instances where I’ve got it wrong. I do not hide in anonymity, because I was too much a coward to attack other people w/o hiding behind a visor. I do not need to flood the forum with repetitions of long copy/paste-texts to compensate for the weakness of my own arguments. I do not feel the need to reference other scientists’ credentials to polish my own inflated ego.

      What about you?

      Generalissimo Skippy wrote on May 16, 2014 at 5:26 pm:

      Not that he has students – thankfully.

      Yeah, imagine. How horrible that would be, considering how successfully you have shown how wrong everything has been what I have been saying here, like in your reply to my arguments regarding the Fyfe et al., paper:
      http://judithcurry.com/2014/05/14/lennart-bengtsson-resigns-from-the-gwpf/#comment-556211

      Oh wait, there hasn’t been any reply by you, which actually addressed my arguments. Zilch, nada, nichts, niente, rien, nic, ничто́, 无.

    • Generalissimo Skippy

      What a bizarre conflation of nonsense.

      You poor victim of a personal slur, which you did not provoce at all. You model case of politeness.

      As for my “credibility”.

      “Full Definition of CREDIBILITY
      1: the quality or power of inspiring belief
      2: capacity for belief ”

      (Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/credibility)

      So, you want to be a devote follower of someone who has “credibility”. Can’t you think for yourself?

      What I said was. Perlwitz responds with a repetition of the quote from Julia Slingo and Tim Palmer – people who actually have some credibility in the field – a reference to his poor benighted students and a personal slur. Let’s go with the idea that Perlwitz has zilch credibility.

      I let my arguments here speak for themselves and for my intellectual capacity. I stand with my real name for it, including for the instances where I’ve got it wrong. I do not hide in anonymity, because I was too much a coward to attack other people w/o hiding behind a visor. I do not need to flood the forum with repetitions of long copy/paste-texts to compensate for the weakness of my own arguments. I do not feel the need to reference other scientists’ credentials to polish my own inflated ego.

      What about you?

      This seems to be about the extent and quality of the argument. I stand by my nom de guerre – it is all nonsense from the typically vicious little monster that is the real subject of this post.

      Generalissimo Skippy wrote on May 16, 2014 at 5:26 pm:

      Not that he has students – thankfully.

      Yeah, imagine. How horrible that would be, considering how successfully you have shown how wrong everything has been what I have been saying here, like in your reply to my arguments regarding the Fyfe et al., paper:
      http://judithcurry.com/2014/05/14/lennart-bengtsson-resigns-from-the-gwpf/#comment-556211

      Oh wait, there hasn’t been any reply by you, which actually addressed my arguments. Zilch, nada, nichts, niente, rien, nic, ничто́, 无.

      Has he mastered the art of saying nothing in many languages? He asked for peer reviewed science discussing divergence of models and observations. I simply linked a Nature page. I ignored the rationalisations about flawed methodology – and went straight to the crux. Which bizarrely he seems to argue as well – as in multiple divergent solutions from which a single solution is chosen to be graphed alongside other model solutions. The problem with this is discussed in both of the other papers I linked to and in the quotes. These are qualitative selections based – in the words of James McWilliams – on a posteriori solution behavior. Most of the solutions thus selected continue to diverge from observations. The choices are too hot.

  159. Stephen Pruett

    My perspective differs somewhat from that of BartR. I have also been in the academic world a long time, and I can assure you that if the wrong people oppose you, it can cost publications (or at least cost time to resubmit to multiple different journals until one finally accepts it), grant funding (decided in almost all countries by very small groups of people), and ultimately the ability to pursue one’s career as a valued colleague. I have no idea if Bengstton was worried about the first two issues, but being a pariah at your own institution in the latter years of a long career after you have given and achieved much would be horrible. My guess is that this, more than the opinion of people in other countries or whether his next paper or grant would be accepted, was the concern that made him change course. For Bart to assume otherwise with absolutely no evidence tells us much about Bart (which anyone who reads this blog with any regularity already knew). Bart, do your really think that Bengstton did this for a nefarious hidden purpose? What in his history and long and distinguished record makes you think so? Of course, there is nothing, other than the fact that his opinions don’t fit into your neat little religious narrative of CAGW, to support any of your ridiculous assertions. Please, just go away Bart

    • Stephen Pruett | May 16, 2014 at 4:54 pm |

      Our experiences and surmises are remarkably similar: you think Dr. Bengtsson did what he did upon realizing he’d endangered his reputation and with it exposed himself to increased opposition from those who would now realize what he stands for; that he understood better how his free choice would impact his ability to gain the respectability of being published by respectable publishers; that he figured out the grant opportunities gained by open alliance with the tax-free “educational charity” that has a surprising amount of money for media campaigns and spectacle would not balance the grants he’d lose from people who consider association with a transparent tax fraud scheme a bad thing; and, ultimately that he had betrayed the trust of his valued colleagues by exposing them to such scandal.

      So do I.

      I just don’t phrase it so coyly.

      Please, stay and maybe start talking about Science and facts, instead of ad hominem gossiping about reputations, as you’re really terrible at gossip. “Terrible at gossip” is as high praise as I would ever hope to hear on my own behalf, but I imagine you’re put out by it.

    • Stephen -

      –> “For Bart to assume otherwise with absolutely no evidence tells us much about Bart (which anyone who reads this blog with any regularity already knew). ”

      I wonder what you think it tells us about “skeptics” when they assume that Bengtsson’s treatment was part of a “reign of terror,” McCarthyism, Lysenkoism, blah, blah, blah, when they didn’t even know how he was treated?

    • Stephen -

      –> “What in his history and long and distinguished record makes you think so?”

      What do you think of someone who has a long and distinguished career who took action to knowingly undermine the journal’s promise to the reviewer to keep the review confidential? If you knew that a reviewer was promised that his review would remain confidential, would you then stick it to that reviewer by taking the review to the media?

    • Joshua | May 20, 2014 at 12:25 am |

      ” “skeptics” when they assume that Bengtsson’s treatment was part of a “reign of terror,” McCarthyism, Lysenkoism, blah, blah, blah, when they didn’t even know how he was treated?”

      But wait, there’s more…
      http://judithcurry.com/2014/05/14/lennart-bengtsson-resigns-from-the-gwpf/#comment-560916

    • Wags has always been one of my favorites. He, stan, and GaryM are all top-notch.

    • Heh Joshua,
      fer once I agree with ya’.
      Wags, Stan and Gary M
      are favorites of mine as well. )

  160. Pingback: Bullied and Badgered, Pressured and Purged | Handle's Haus

  161. Pingback: Weekend Media Roundup: Obama Aid Perplexes on Platts, Bill Moyers Misses the Boat, and Tom Steyer Loves Himself

  162. Bart,

    You are becoming a master of the mealy. Stephen Pruett describes the academic environment in an accurate manner. Your version lacks credibility and is mealy. You wander from “facts” whenever it suits you and have no problem with inferring disreputable motivations to Prof Bengtsson.

    • > You wander from “facts” whenever it suits you and have no problem with inferring disreputable motivations to Prof Bengtsson.

      Is a “mealy” missing from that last sentence, timg56?

      There was one in your first two.

    • timg56 | May 19, 2014 at 5:44 pm |

      http://ioppublishing.org/newsDetails/statement-from-iop-publishing-on-story-in-the-times

      (h/t R. Gresty | May 19, 2014 at 12:23 am | in Reflections..)

      It is clear, now that the publisher and two reviewers have put their side of the story into the open, that Dr. Bengtsson simply lied in his scurrilous accusations against his colleagues and one of the more respected publishers in the Science world. That’s not a great contradistinction; there are many publishers of shoddy reputation.

      So, sadly, I must reject your offering of the title of ‘master’ to me at this time.

    • –> ” You wander from “facts” whenever it suits you and have no problem with inferring disreputable motivations to Prof Bengtsson.”

      I wouldn’t want to pass judgement on Bengtsson’s motivations (not knowing the man), but his actions undermined any confidentiality agreement the journal had with its reviewers (which surely Bengtsson would know about), as well as forced the reviewer to “out” himself if he was going to defend himself against Bengtsson’s accusations.

      Seems to me, that if Bengtsson is willing to engage in activities that undermine a basic tenet of peer review, then he shouldn’t be trying to get his work published in peer reviewed journals. Dude wants to take advantage of what peer review has to offer even as he undermines the process of peer review.

    • A couple of interesting quotes from Bart’s IOP link:

      The comparison between observation based estimates of ECS and TCR (which would have been far more interesting and less impacted by the large uncertainty about the heat content change relative to the 19th century) and model based estimates is comparing apples and pears, as the ‘models are calculating true global means’, whereas ‘the observations have limited coverage’. This difference has been emphasised in a recent contribution by Kevin Cowtan, 2013.

      I have rated the potential impact in the field as high, but I have to emphasise that this would be a strongly negative impact, as it does not clarify anything but puts up the (false) claim of some big inconsistency, where no consistency was to be expected in the first place.

      I did not know that models were better at getting at the true global means.

      The 2nd paragraph, Bengtsson said there was an inconsistency, claimed it and when there is no consistency as expected he made a false statement. They agree on the inconsistency, but only one of them is correct.

    • Bart,

      You can add the skill of divination and tea leave reading with this one: “Dr. Bengtsson simply lied in his scurrilous accusations against his colleagues and one of the more respected publishers in the Science world”

      Your link is typical CYA from the Journal. And their claim of not being innovative enough is a joke. With thousands, if not tens of thousands of papers published each year that touch on climate change, only a fool or a fanatic is going to buy that line of reasoning.

      So, which one are you?

    • willard,

      try being witty elsewhere. Here you are a drag.

    • Wit? It’s preciosity. Wit may follow wondering well.
      ============

  163. Pingback: Something missing in the “critiques” of Bengtsson’s choice | The View From Here

  164. Why are people so surprised by the actions of these climate change charlatans turned eco-bullies? It has been going on for years?

    And the blame rests squarely on the doorstep of the IPCC, with its catastrophic man-made global warming religion… the world’s greatest ever deception, hoax, fraud, or whatever else one wishes to describe it.

  165. Pingback: AGU: Enforcing the consensus | Climate Etc.