Nice sentiments

Updated on May 17, 2014 by Bishop Hill

Updated on May 17, 2014 by Bishop Hill

Simon Buckle of the Grantham Institute at Imperial has penned some nice thoughts about the Bengtsson affair:

Professor Lennart Bengtsson’s resignation from the GWPF Academic Advisory Council has received wide coverage and raises important issues.

Whatever anyone’s views are on the role, motivation and integrity of the GWPF in this matter, it is up to individual academics whether or not to associate themselves with it in an advisory role.

Click to read more ...

That error

The Bengtsson paper would have to have been very bad to be worse than, say, Kummler and Dessler, but at the moment we just don't know because we haven't seen it. However, the ERL editor claims that Bengtsson's offering contained errors. Unfortunately she doesn't actually identify any; the only concern  in the reviewer report published to date seems to be with Bengtsson's temerity in thinking that observations and models really ought to match up, and of course the concern that sceptics might be keen on the paper.

But there are some errors floating around that are worth a look - as I mentioned earlier a cursory glance suggested to me that the reviewer's report itself included a bit of a boo-boo. I've now been away and done some fact checking and confirmed that I was right. Actually, I'm righter than I thought I was, as I shall now explain. Here's the paragraph in question:

Click to read more ...

Happy Birthday 97% - Josh 277

There is so much to cartoon this week it is difficult to choose what to start with. I went for Brandon's brilliant 97% data discovery. Apparently all you need to do if you want to be part of the 97% consensus that global warming is a real and present danger is just add 'Global Warming' or 'Climate Change' somewhere near or in your paper. So let's go the extra mile and help these guys get published - let's give them a sticker!

Click to read more ...

Bengtsson speaks to the Telegraph

The Telegraph has further comments from Lennart Bengtsson, clarifying his position:

Last night Professor Bengtsson, said: “I do not believe there is any systematic “cover up” of scientific evidence on climate change or that academics’ work is being “deliberately suppressed”, as The Times front page suggests. I am worried by a wider trend that science is being gradually being influenced by political views. Policy decisions need to be based on solid fact.

This seems similar to the position advanced by Benny Peiser in his radio interview (see last post), who said that he thought that the problems were caused by a small group of activist scientists.

Benny Peiser on LBC

Benny Peiser was just on LBC radio discussing the Bengtsson affair. Audio below.

Peiser LBC interview

The ERL reviewer's report

Updated on May 16, 2014 by Bishop Hill

Environmental Research Letters has published a statement on the Bengtsson affair, protesting its innocence over the accusation that it rejected the paper on political grounds. It seems to be arguing that there were scientific, as well as non-scientific reasons for rejecting the paper. Certainly the offending editor's quote is acknowledged:

Summarising, the simplistic comparison of ranges from AR4, AR5, and Otto et al, combined with the statement 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.

Click to read more ...

Scientivism Media Centre on Bengtsson

The Science Media Centre has entered the fray on the Bengtsson affair, publishing one of its usual "expert reaction" pieces. Readers will recall that after the Oxburgh affair nearly every expert the SMC quoted was among those accused of wrongdoing regarding Climategate. It's a similar story today, with the SMC choosing to quote Bob Ward (an expert in what way?!), Myles Allen (who sits on the editorial board of the journal involved) and Simon Lewis, who can bring nothing to the party except his hard-core green activism. Only Tim Palmer might pass muster as a neutral.

This disclaimer at the bottom of the piece intrigued me:

Myles Allen is on the Editorial Board of Environmental Research Letters but played no part in the review of or editorial decisions on the Bengtsson paper.  He states: “I wasn’t even aware of it until yesterday, and still haven’t seen the paper — nor do I wish to see it, since rejected papers are meant to be kept confidential.”

Click to read more ...

The bigotry of the consensus

The Bengtsson affair continues to generate outrage from normal people and a curious mix of insanity and bigotry from upholders of the global warming consensus.

The story is being widely reported in the MSM as well as on news aggregators like Drudge. The Times has an important new angle:

In an echo of the infamous “Climategate” scandal at the University of East Anglia, one of the world’s top academic journals rejected the work of five experts after a reviewer privately denounced it as “harmful”.

Click to read more ...

First Amendment versus the University of Queensland

The University of Queensland has come over all litigious with Brandon Schollenberger, threatening him with a legal suit if he continues to examine John Cook's 97% consensus paper:

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

I'm almost speechless with the sheer ineptitude of the university authorities here. Have they not heard of the First Amendment? They are going to make themselves a laughing stock and attract the attention of people all round the world to the problems in Cook's work.

What planet are they on?

Quote of the day, hypocrisy edition

The average person who says they care about climate change actually has a substantially worse than average [carbon] footprint. Generally that’s because they tend to have a bit more money, and they tend to be people who like to think of themselves as multicultural and like to get out and see the world. Which means that they’re flying around a lot, and all that flying generally outweighs any other green lifestyle choices that they’ve made. You have a lot of people who are using reusable bags and water bottles, driving a Prius, maybe eating a bit more of a veggie friendly diet. But then they’re flying to Bali or South Africa or something once a year.

Ian Monroe, CEO of Oroeco.  From here.

Bengtsson and the left

As Judy Curry notes, the Bengtsson affair is going to be very damaging for the climatology profession. From the press reports today it seems clear that Bengtsson was threatened with ostracisation from the rest of the "community" because of his temerity in offering to provide scientific advice to GWPF. It seems that at least one climatologist demanded that his name be removed from a forthcoming joint paper with Bengtsson.

As a result, the word "McCarthyism" has been bandied about. The behaviour of climatologists does not carry an official stamp of course (although I can't say I've noticed any protests from Ed Davey either) but the effects look rather similar: you toe the line or you will be cut off. A senior scientist like Bengtsson could perhaps consider carrying on regardless - hard, but not impossible. For a younger scientist it would of course be the end of their career.

Click to read more ...

The MSM covers Bengtsson

A couple of articles in the MSM are good on the Bengtsson affair. The Mail covers some of the reactions from the less reputable climate scientists and their fellow travellers:

He was also abused on science blogs, with one describing the people who condemned him as ‘respectable’ and that his actions amounted to ‘silliness’.

Another described him as a ‘crybaby’.

The Times, meanwhile, notes that the main source of pressure on Bengtsson was from the USA:

He said the pressure had mainly come from climate scientists in the US, including one employed by the US government who threatened to withdraw as co-author of a forthcoming paper because of his link with the foundation.

Interesting times.

Update on May 15, 2014 by Bishop Hill

Rupert Darwall makes an interesting point at the National Review:

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.

Update on May 15, 2014 by Bishop Hill

Mark Steyn is, as ever, on the ball:

I've lately been meeting with potential witnesses for my end of the upcoming Mann vs Steyn trial. And I always tell them the same thing: They don't have to do this, and I wouldn't think any less of them if they declined, but, if they decide to go ahead and testify for the defense, they must understand that the ayatollahs of alarmism will get out the hockey sticks and club them to a pulp, as they've just done to Professor Bengtsson. Most of them are firm in their commitment to stand up for the truth - but in a climate mob trial there's no witness protection program, alas.

The community strikes back

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."

Update on May 14, 2014 by Bishop Hill

Marcel Crok's thoughts here.

Steve McIntyre's here.

WUWT here.

Update on May 14, 2014 by 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

Diary dates, comedy edition

A couple of events at the Hay Festival look amusing, with the festival organisers clearly "having a laugh".

On 27 May you can get your head round the wisdom of Marcus Brigstocke on the subject of climate change:

The comedian and broadcaster, who has witnessed the impact of climate change in the Arctic, is joined by Simms, author and campaigner with Global Witness, to discuss how close we are to crossing planetary environmental thresholds, how we got into this mess and what we need to do to get out of it.

I wonder what he saw there that made him so certain he was witnessing the impact of climate change?

Then, later the same day there is this comedy gem:

What would you do if you had to power the UK? Marcus Brigstocke and Libby Purves get to grips with how to generate enough energy to keep the lights on and power their appliances. Dependency on overseas supplies, volatile fossil fuel prices and the need for a low-carbon economy makes this one of the biggest challenges facing the country. Richard Smith of National Grid and David MacKay of the DECC are our expert advisors. Chaired by Mark Lynas and using the 2050 calculator.

Marcus Brigstocke and Libby Purves?! Praise the Lord. We're clearly all saved!

I'm not really familiar with what goes on at the Hay Festival, but is this typical of their output? Do people really go there to learn about energy policy from the likes of Marcus Brigstocke? Or is there some kind of post-modern irony that I'm missing? And how is this going to look if the lights go out next winter?

The extraordinary intervention of Baroness Williams

There was an extraordinary intervention from Baroness (Shirley) Williams in the House of Lords today on the subject of climate change, on the one hand making wild and unscientific claims and on the other demanding that these same claims be taught to children in schools.

Baroness Williams of Crosby (LD):

My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that one of the key findings of the United States climate change report is that the process of climate change is now much faster than we had expected it to be? The effects are predicted to fall within a matter of a decade or so, rather than 20 or 30 years from now. Given that, will she persuade her friendly Secretary of State for Education to ensure that children in school are made more aware of the absolute necessity of tackling climate change than they are at present?

Click to read more ...