Bishop Hill The community strikes back
May 14, 2014 Climate: Sceptics GWPF This has just been posted at Klimazwiebel:
In an e-mail to GWPF, Lennart Bengtsson has declared his resignation of the advisory hoard of GWPF. His letter reads :
"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."
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill
GWPF has published the response of Professor David Henderson, the chairman of its Academic Advisory Council, to Bengtsson.
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
Reader Comments (164)
[Snip - response to snipped comment]
stan:
I didn't read what Steve McIntyre wrote that way at all. He wasn't agreeing with idea that all baddies are funded by the Kochs and all whom they fund are baddies - how could he when friends of his like Muller and Mosher have taken money from them? But it's also true that most people who question climate science and policy have nothing to do with the Kochs. That has been a crude stereotype put forward to avoid dealing with the real reasons people have become suspicious. That was Steve's point.
When the gravy train is threatened and their lifestyles in question all pseudo climate scientists will use whatever they can to maintain the status quo.
We need an immediate response from Nurse, stating his and the Royal Society's position. I won't hold my breath, though.
This is a great contribution from Bengtsson to the GWPF and to the rational debate on climate.
He exposes the un-scientific behaviour of many of his peers and the pressure to what many other meteorologists may be subject to in their every day work. It may even polarize the academic field and help those who oppose this kind of McCarthyism. I know many academics working in related fields that are not comfortable with the dogma, but think that showing up as a contrarian is not worth loosing their jobs. One day enough may be enough.
However, things will change little while funding for projects depends on not being critical of the Konsensus, and nowadays a hint of doubt is enough for a project to be rejected in most of the cases, because those exerting the pressure on Bengtsson will be the reviewers who decide the approval of future research projects.
Nurse is far too busy being politically important about Astro Zeneca to get involved with such matters as the outrageous and disgraceful personal attacks on a elderly scientist, who might just have become associated with a sceptic group that Nurse would probably prefer was prohibited anyway.
Trust is the issue. We cannot trust anybody in the climate KKK...for all we know, Chandra is being forced to come out here to write silly stuff in order to protect his own health and safety.
"I see no limit and end to what will happen" says Bengtsson - this removes credibility from all IPCC authors. In fact, they know where each other lives.
I have always been agnostic about Richard Drake's view that people should use their real names, but after this disgraceful incident I agree with him.
If there have been physical threats then the police must be informed.
The only response to these thugs is "OK, come after me - if you think you're hard enough!"
Let's also pause to think how and where this might have happened. Bengtsson is from Sweden, but has worked in Germany and England. He has been in charge of the ECMRWF and has been awarded with the René Descartes Prize for Collaborative Research.
Bengtsson, in other words, is one of the most connected researchers in the world.
The GWPF on the other hand is a British organisation. I am not sure how well known it is on the Continent. Perhaps in Germany too, but I do not think they've ever been invited to speak to the media, or in the Parliament. Their activity is British.
This means the most likely source and location of the "enormous group pressure" is in the intersection of the two sets, that is, in Britain. Any British scientist who will keep mum is a potential member of the "group" and I'd treat him/her as such. I do come from a mafia-infested area and I know how they think, inspiring worries about health and safety and all.
Alternatively, this episode may show that the GWPF is becoming a global powerhouse.
Five precepts of the Climate Consensus:
1. Don't think.
2. If you think, then don't speak.
3. If you think and speak, then don't write.
4. If you think, speak and write, then don't sign.
5. If you think, speak, write and sign, then don't be surprised.
Insignificant as it may be, this has made sure where my vote will be going on Thursday 22nd May 2014.
omnologos, good try, but I beg to disagree.
ECMWF is very international. It is paid by the whole of the EU and its main product the "European model" (weather, not climate) is used worldwide
http://www.ecmwf.int/en/research/projects
One of its strengths is precisely international cooperation (http://judithcurry.com/2012/03/30/u-s-weather-prediction-falling-behind/) probably thanks to Bengtsson.
(sorry read too fast)
GWPF has Lindzen, Courtillot, Freeman Dyson, ... That looks pretty international to me.
Patagon - please re-read what I wrote. "Bengtsson, in other words, is one of the most connected researchers in the world".
If Bengtsson's connections are worldwide and the GWPF's playground is Britain, it is far more likely that the enormous pressure on Bengtsson has been placed by people in Britain.
I am sure one can rally non-British researchers against the GWPF but I doubt they'd have the time to go "enormous" on Bengtsson.
Richard Drake, do you know the definition of acolyte?
He wasn't making reference to funding. He was casting aspersions on the Kochs consistent with the unrelenting campaign of vilification that the Democrats and the news media have been waging in the US.
Just shows how this kind of campaign of vilification [see also alarmist vilification of GWPF which likely influenced climate scientists to shun Bengtsson] works. Even someone like Steve, who's been a victim, succumbs to the brainwashing effect of the constant lies.
omnologos, sorry, re-read and corrected. GWPF has some good international connections. Do you really think the likes of Mann and co. don't have time to go on Bengston?
I think the best clue is "Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc."
stan: I do know and I don't agree.
Professor Lennart Bengtsson – perhaps the first public victim of the true Climate Holocaust.
Now let THEM deny it.
It would be excellent to see Professor Bengtsson name and shame those who have driven him to this position by publishing their cruel comments and threats. However, I'm sure that there is no chance of this.
There are other possibilities. I would like to see this story receive maximum publicity. The public have heard a great deal about the consensus. They should understand how it is achieved and maintained.
The Establishment has frequently declared its support for the climate science community. Let us now hear its criticism.
Scientists in general must be appalled by this event. Let their voices be heard.
There may be a few insiders who are in a position to withstand the consequences of being a whistle blower. They should speak out and expose this corruption of science.
This dark event speaks volumes about climate science.
Addition.
Lennart Bengtsson joining the GWPF was more publicized in Germany than in Britain:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/meteorologist-lennart-bengtsson-joins-climate-skeptic-think-tank-a-968856.html
Also in the German edition.
Some interesting previous reaction: http://notrickszone.com/2014/05/04/bengtsson-joins-gwpf-alarmist-physicist-georg-hoffmann-reacts-parallels-gwpf-to-the-ku-klux-klan/
Georg Hoffmann is very active at bashing skeptics:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/04/claude-allegre-the-climate-imposter/
http://notrickszone.com/2011/04/11/german-climate-scientist-georg-hoffmann-says-skeptics-close-to-psychopathology/
Bishop please don't ban chandra prove we are open and not scared of debate and that makes us better than them.
Richard Drake on May 14, 2014 at 3:48 PM
"How did you know in advance this would happen?"
Those with wisdom may not know the future, but they usually have a good idea what might happen. Fortunately, it is often the case that most of the possible 'incidents' expected can be covered by the same simple precautions.
When a big problem approaches, the simple question is often, "Fight or flight?".
So, what should you do when attacked by two men in a deserted area? The answer is to run away, but not to avoid the confrontation, but hoping that one of them will run faster than the other, so they can be fought separately, and not together! (Assuming you can run, then fight, so keeping fit would be another good idea!)
A more sophisticated response to the question would therefore include "Survive, and fight later, with more chance of success". It is a noble choice in its own right!
Many of us, from time to time, include this third option. Whether it is due to financial concerns (like a new mortgage), being time poor (caring for others) or health concerns, we are not always able to take the choice we would like, had we had the extra resources available.
It is also the smart option, if we know that other choices would result in us not being able to contribute later on!
Sensorman: That's way OTT sorry. Don't let's confuse direction of travel with destination.
I have a feeling there is more to this story than is apparent from reading the resignation email and the response.
I hope that, eventually, Lennart Bengtsson will publish any relevant emails he has received.
Robert Christopher: I already said I admire prudence. What I admire much less is anything that may demoralise someone willing to fight (whether after running or before).
Roger Longstaff: I greatly appreciate your comment but I have never in fact advocated everyone using their real name. It was all meant to be a bit more subtle than that. But events like this rightly make us think. Thank you again.
Richard Drake: you're right. Retracted. But suppression of dissent is a viscerally shocking thing.
It is quite understandable that the good professor may not want to name and shame.
However, if past performance is anything to go by, the ugly mob will have tried to intimidate his colleagues, blackball him with journals and undermine his academic position but no-one has reported anything. Also it would be in keeping for there to be a storm of abuse on Twitter but nothing has been mentioned here, at least (I am not a user).
We need evidence otherwise it will be all too easy for his claims to be dismissed.
The pressure, imho - was most definitely exercised ex EU-ropa.
Here in Britain - among the NGOs and governmental departments and those prats which run them - no one has that sort of clout, and this will be down to money, stipends and 'other forms of help' and the EU's-Germany's reach is.....................................................long - he couldn't be allowed to defect. In certain parts of Europe, in earlier times he'd have been remitted to a re indoctrination camp or, something shall we say, more precipitate.
*********************************************************************************************************************
Chandra, Jo Abbess, Icarus, wotsherface is a nuisance. I do remember kids like her at Uni and at School - they'd take over, by cornering a lecturer/teacher in a lesson and then nothing would get done. I am all for free speech but am not for incessant and weakly premised equivocal arguments, casuistry dressed up as science - she's far too post-normal really to bother with.
Seventeen scientists from Reading University were involved in the 5th Assessment Report including several from the Walker Institute for Climate System Research which is hosted by Reading.
A balanced view threatens Reading's snout at the climate trough. For example DECC funds something called the Avoiding Dangerous Climate Change Programme. AVOID apparently provides "evidence to inform mitigation and adaptation strategies for avoiding dangerous climate change".
Unless climate scientists arrive at the conclusion that climate change caused by man is "dangerous", the billions of dollars (and future trillions) of mostly private money invested by banks in climate funds to finance "clean energy" will be at risk. And they will have their profit no matter what the cost to the taxpayer.
https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/taking-international-action-to-mitigate-climate-change/supporting-pages/scientific-evidence-to-help-us-understand-climate-change
http://climatepolicyinitiative.org/press-release/climate-change-investment-totals-usd-359-billion-worldwide/
Very few academics - whatever their intelligence and knowledge may tell them - are prepared to stand against the intellectual/ideological status quo, despite all the idealisation/idolisation of independent thought which the academy likes to proclaim. Such cowardice or pragmatism is evident in many areas, not just climate science.
I'm inclined to think that both Lennart Bengtsson's joining GWPF and his hounding off it - and the publicity that both have attracted - will be staging posts in the crumbling AGW consensus.
As I said there's the distinct possibility that this story is the first sign the gwpf scares alarmists witless the world over.
However with Bengtsson been working in Reading, Ockham would've barbered more locally.
That was similar to my thoughts. So does that imply some unmentioned threats have neen made, or was he naive to think this possible outcome was unlikely? Roy Spencer has described similar.
I think 52 has come closest to pinning the true reason why Curry is allowed to get away with a certain scepticism and Bengtsson isn't.
But I think the "community" that we are talking about here is not just the "pseudo-climate-scientists" but an even larger cadre of hedge fund managers, landowners with their snouts in the renewables trough, politicians with their eye on tax revenue, eco-warriors with an agenda, and probably a couple of dozen other groups as well.What this does point up is the extent to which the community is worried about the likes of GWPF or the Heartland Institute. Lawson et al should be mightily encouraged at this turn of events.
Curry can be tolerated because she is in a sense a lone wolf. She is challenging the science but in a "politically acceptable" way. The GWPF on the other hand is not challenging the science, at least not the underlying science. What they are doing is ten times worse; they are challenging the politics and the Mission. If credible scientists are allowed to align themselves with such organisations and lend their avowedly expert support to organised opposition to the AGW belief system then there is a real danger that the whole house of cards could collapse.
Peter Whale summed it up well earlier today:
These are people of influence with an awful lot to lose if this scam goes belly-up.
Never get between a petit bourgeois and his mortgage payments.
Mark Steyn had posted in his latest comments on Michael Mann and the climate science "community" that there is a degree of aggressively enforced orthodoxy that stunned him..... and he is someone quite accustomed to confronting political correctness in various guises. Steyn:
It is evident that Steyn underestimated the degree of enforced conformity placed upon even very senior distinguished scientists, if they wish to retain any viability for their own research and professional activities.
I agree with Linda Holt. This disgraceful episode in climate science deserves to be a turning point.
The climate science community is tarnished. The science was already dubious. The consensus appears to be reinforced by abuse and threat.
The rest of us must not allow this to be whitewashed over like the climategate scandal in the past.
Thank you, Professor Bengtsson, for the truth of it. You may very well have made another major contribution to meteorology.
"Scientists in general must be appalled by this event. Let their voices be heard."
Do you think so SD? I don't. Look how many were shocked at the climategate emails. One? Judith Curry. The rest, led by the odious Slingo, piled in in defence of the indefensible. I spent years working with universities and the SERC and their sole motivation was funding. Nothing else mattered. So if making things up to support a political viewpoint brings funding that's where they will go, with few exceptions. Believe me most will be thinking he got what he deserved for threatening the funding.
I might, of course, be wrong and we'll see an eruption of outrage from the scientific community at this bullying, but don't hold your breath, it takes a lot of knowledge to be humble, and humility in the scientific community is a currency valued at zero at this present time.
In response to Skiphil and Mark Stein's comments. From the perspective of a young researcher who aspires to be a scientist in this field, there is something worse than being forced to tow the line and that is doing research with blinders on. What drives good scientists is the journey into the unknown and the potential to find new insight to a problem. In climate science, truth has been defined by consensus and the the upstarts are expected to support rather than discover. It's a great job for someone who likes to do what they are told but not for anyone who really wants to think. The only good result from the expected mediocrity is that the quality of the researcher is proportional to the amount of grant money raised. So long as you tell your government backers exactly what they want to hear, your proposals will get funded and your institutes administration will rate you as brilliant.
As for Dr. Bengtssom, I wouldn't be surprised if the "threats" were made against the funding of associates he is still working with.
whoops, last sentence at end of Steyn block quote above was mine, not his
damned touchpad and going too fast!
[Corrected. BH]
Harrabin and the BBC will be all over this like a rash.
Oh, hang on .......................
channeling Alarmist Fantasyland "All scientist support the IPCC, only those mad deniers disagree. Their bonkers opinion is that there plenty of scientists who who are skeptical of alarmist catastrophe dogma, but that many are scared to speak up.
..Doh nutters, What evidence do they have for such a wacky conspiracy theory ?"
Zealots just love tribal (ethnic) cleansing.
Lysenko is one of the 97%!
We are now into the final battle; the attempt to impose our era's version of fascism.
The next stage is censorship of the Intrenet to close down our Samizdat process.
Community
Several other people have mentioned this as well as me and this is the key to the whole thing.
The point about "community" is that it creates a "us" and "them". And so a boundary is drawn around a social group.
So "science" starts to be used to mean "people in the group" - "people within the science old-boys club".
So, a skeptic with a physics degree who has studied climate, renewables for more than a decade like me, or a chemist with similar experience like Andrew are "non-scientists" who are denied legitimacy to talk about climate & energy.
Whereas a geneticist like Nurse (Royal Society), bio-medical person like Walport (chief Scientist) or a biologist like Jones (of the BBC report) are all by nature of being in the science "club" deemed (by the BBC, academics, government. press) to have a legitimacy to pontificate about climate even though they are entirely unqualified to do so.
So, this all shows that the legitimacy to speak on climate comes down to "being in the science club". Not qualifications, not experience, not validity of predictions - but the endorsement of you by the other members of the club.
This is why they are so concerned that people "stay in the club" - don't jump ship to the GWPF to give them legitimacy and keep us skeptics "out" by denying us access to their journals.
In other words - it's all about "manning the barriers", "keeping the skeptics out (of decision making)", "keeping their own members on side", and generally enforcing a "them" and "us" attitude between [consensus] science of the "scientific community" and skeptic science methodology, results, etc. which we discuss.
It reads to me like Professor Bengtsson is a victim of intimidation and harassment in the work place.
I thought they were laws against that?
A seemingly v.mild apostate threatened with excommunication and worse ? No attempt to engage - just a ratcheting up of pressure to conform. One has to wonder if Bengtsson will smolder as a result and subsequently, on reflection bite back. It must have been some pretty intense pecking from folk he obviously considered trusted collaborators to drive somebody of his stature to resign like this. He seems to have little to prove professionally and one can only wonder at what level of pressure has been applied and by whom...
Storm in a teacup. Nick Stokes sums up this non-event at Climate Audit -
This is an important event, given Bengtsson's distinctions, but it would be a more informative one if he were to release details of every communication he has received over the past week or so that he has found so disturbing. The low moral and intellectual standards in climate science and the associated politickings make this event an unsurprising one, but the clearing up of the mess might be expedited if more information was provided about the sources and nature of the threats to Bengtsson.
The poor guy gets to realise in one go what a bunch of arseholes his former "colleagues" have always been.