The global warming clergy deal with another heretic

The global warming clergy will never give up their faith. They have grown insanely wealthy and powerful on the back of bamboozling the hoi polloi and have no intention of letting go the riches that have flowed in their direction since this scam began. So if you are one of those with an open mind about the minimal likelihood of a carbon planetary death over the next century, then the assault on Professor Lennart Bengtsson will just seem par for the course. And while James Delingpole thinks this may be “a bridge too far” for the AGW brigade, it is really nothing more than a small skirmish in The Great Climate War that was settled long ago. So while it’s a big story today and even made it to the front page of The Times, you are kidding yourself if you think it will make the slightest difference. Other than the billions it will cost us in wealth, since it is billions we do not have and will never earn, the money we will never receive cannot be used in a campaign of our own to turn this particular tide. The only thing we have on our side are the facts. So it goes. But the Bengtsson moment is nevertheless worthy of our consideration.

Bengtsson is a scientist who has moved from having accepted the global warming hypothesis to a more sceptical approach, last month joining the board of Nigel Lawson’s Global Warming Policy Foundation. This is the story of the reaction from his fellow “scientists”.

The leading Swedish climatologist and former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, astonished the academic world with his decision to join the advisory council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), founded by renowned climate change critic Lord Lawson.

Explaining his decision earlier this month, Professor Bengtsson said he wanted to learn from the highly qualified experts at the GWPF in areas outside of his own expertise and to help widen the debate through his own extensive meteorological knowledge.

His perceived “defection” was described as the biggest switch from the pro-climate change lobby to the sceptic camp to date.

But in his resignation letter to the London-based GWPF today, the 79-year-old said the enormous pressure he had felt from around the world to his appointment on the organisation’s Academic Advisory Council had become “virtually unbearable”.

Prof Bengtsson added: “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 [been] 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.”

The Professor’s letter concluded: “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.”

As someone commented, this ‘has the potential to do as much harm to climate science as did the Climategate emails’. Exactly my point. It will do no harm at all.

This entry was posted in Global warming and climate change policy. Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to The global warming clergy deal with another heretic

  1. Andrew

    And UQ disgraces itself further – see WUWT

  2. Bruce of Newcastle

    Just the way the climate consensus behaves makes you think they have something to hide.

    Climate sceptics do not persecute their opponents, they respond with data and published papers which show that CAGW is not happening and can’t happen because actual climate sensitivity to CO2 is low. In response the climateers refuse to debate and never refute the data provided. They just shout you down.

    That is a Stalinist tactic used by totalitarians repeatedly throughout history.

  3. Alfonso

    While ever Their ABC has Robin 100 metres Williams doing warming agitprop the stifling of evidence questioning dangerous man-made warming will never happen there. How lucky are we.

  4. Robert O.

    There are many scientists who have shifted from the “warmist” camp as they have realised the evidence just doesn’t stack-up; 17 years of no significant rise in temperature and yet a significant increase in levels of Carbon Dioxide, hence no correlation whatsoever, that is the science. Whatever is causing climate change continues, perhaps it is natural variation if anything, but it is not greenhouse gases. Since the climate is controlled by the distribution of solar input from the equator to the poles, which is associated with the water cycle and its various latent heats, the current theory of increased cloudiness due to an increase in cosmic activity is interesting.
    What is perturbing is the scientific illiteracy of the “warmistas”, bankers, politicians, economists, journalists, who do not understand the fundamental role of carbon dioxide in the basic chemistry of life, its role in the photochemical reaction of photosynthesis which provides all life forms with carbohydrate as a basic source of energy, and oxygen for its oxidation to allow this process, literally the air for us mammals to breathe.
    I would like to see some honesty and the realisation that the models and the projections based on these are imperfect and at variance with the actual data, without the political hyperbole and covert activity associated with the manipulation of data for the furtherance of fraud.

  5. johno

    Where is Greg Hunt?

    Where is Tony Abbott?

    How much longer are they going to continue their pretense that they can ignore the growing scientific consensus that AGW is a scam.

    When will they start the intense Green de-infestation that the Federal bureaucracy is in desperately required.

  6. Notafan

    Anytime Abbott wants to announce that as the climate models have failed and direct action is cancelled is fine. Will direct action get through the senate, or will Labor greens support it?

  7. Stateless, free and happy

    Reminds me of the famous Card & Krueger story. In 1995 Card & Krueger published a study in the American Economic Review showing that the US minimum wage had NO adverse effect on employment. This was deemed to be heresy. As consequence, they came under so much pressure that Card lost friends and was forced to abandon that line of research.

  8. Jessie

    Andrew re WUWT,
    and The Australian Graham Lloyd on the story today Queensland University tries to block climate research

  9. I have few doubts that Climategate has done harm to the IPCC paradigm. Notwithstanding the IPCC cohorts can rely on their media allies to mount impressive looking support for the latest wagon-circling sermon.

  10. JohnA

    As someone commented, this ‘has the potential to do as much harm to climate science as did the Climategate emails’. Exactly my point. It will do no harm at all.

    However, the Climategate affair did represent a turning point in public perception of the putative inviolability of scientific pronouncements.

    This clearly led to a restoration of skepticism or suspension of belief as a valid position – certainly in the blogosphere, and among the hoi polloi with whom one mixes when one is not a part of the Chardonnay
    socialist set.

    The possible downside is that scientific pronouncements generally will not be received with open arms and minds in future. However, the Climategate affair only exposed that problem. Scientists trashing the sanctity of the scientific religion is the true cause, and such cancer needs to be exposed and excised.

    Since I hold to a different religion, I am not unhappy that the scientific religion has been brought down a peg or two. Science is good in its place as a partial determinant of knowledge but, placed on a pedestal, it becomes scientism which has given us the global warming scare.

  11. Ant

    To get straight to the point: the real villains in the Great Global Warming Racket are the leftist media.

    They have an effective stranglehold on the message, in what they choose to report and amplify or not report and cover up. They’re the Deceivers amongst us, with an unhealthy sprinkling of Dreamers.

    What happened to Bengtsson should be an international scandal but you won’t hear about it from Australia’s biggest media players.

    On the other hand, if one of the usual tenured numpties has an announcement about the hairy-arsed dingbat being threatened by a melting glacier on the other side of the planet, it’s given the full front page treatment.

    This is what eventually filters through to the great mass of Dummies.

    I can’t agree that Climategate made no difference. What it did was empower the sceptics with proof and facts on which they have steadily built their own narrative, which I suspect helped build the case for people like Bengsston.

    This ‘trickle down’ of knowledge plays its part in keeping the Racket low down in the public’s order of priorities as is consistently shown in polling.

    However, nothing beats hard empirical evidence and in that respect the sceptics have been very fortunate.

    From the breaking of the drought in much of Australia to the deep freezes in the USA and Europe, the Deceivers and Dreamers are being made look increasingly mendacious and foolish.

    This has helped get people like Abbott, Keys and Harper into power, where a return to sanity can at least begin.

  12. cohenite

    The UQ brouhaha is quite astounding. From reading WUWT and being privy to some background information UQ appear to be threatening Brandon Shollenberger with some unspecified offence for allegedly hacking information from an open access with attribution site. The UQ lawyers are also claiming copyright over the letter of demand.

    This is egregious. No letter of demand or any correspondence threatening legal action no matter how vague has any copyright. On any reasonable interpretation this would mean any poor wretch who receives such a letter could not even instruct their lawyer.

    In reference to Lloyd’s article in the Australian. he is being cute when he speaks of controversy about Cooks’ 97% consensus rubbish. That paper has been eviscerated.

  13. hammy

    How much longer are they going to continue their pretense that they can ignore the growing scientific consensus that AGW is a scam.

    Do you mean that now only 96.95% of climate scientists believe in climate change now, compared with 97% last year? A collapse indeed!

  14. manalive

    Do you mean that now only 96.95% of climate scientists believe in climate change now, compared with 97% last year?

    What, 3.05% of scientists believe the climate never changes?
    Name them.

  15. Dr.Sir Fred Lenin

    Here are two religions which are a danger to humanity today and Must be Destroyed,
    The first and bloodiest is muslimism,there are no Moderate Muslims ,just soe are not quite as violent as others,they are all dangerous and like the alp greens Regressive.
    The second is global warmism,a more subtle dogma than the peasant muslims,its aim is to grasp all power for the unelected swill at the u.n,,the likes of giLIARdand the insane krudtpster.
    Deportation and Destruction will fix the first one,.
    Defunding will fix the second,no money ? Who listens?

  16. cohenite

    Well said professor, Dr, Sir Fred Lenin.

  17. egg_

    Read commentary somewhere about Scientists not questioning others’ disciplines – probably what lead us onto this path if the ‘peer reviewers’ weren’t kept in check.
    Not unlike Germaine Greer asking about keeping Biblical scholars honest, when one has to understand both the language and the context.
    What hope does Joe Public have but recourse to the the courts, per the infamous UK case with the truck driver dad v A Gore’s ‘evangelical film.

  18. Notafan

    Brilliant and it only cost three times as much as a regular roof!

    so called green roof

  19. Oh come on

    Climategate did no harm at all? Stuff and nonsense. It was the elephant in the room at the failed Copenhagen conference. AGW hysteria peaked after An Inconvenient Truth was released. That was a time when climate policy was so important to the average voter that it could determine their choice at the ballot box. Now it is politically relevant only to a small minority who would vote Green even if no one had ever heard of AGW.

    We can thank Climategate for that.

  20. jupes

    When will they start the intense Green de-infestation that the Federal bureaucracy is in desperately required.

    Not in the near future that’s for sure.

    However you will know that the end of the scam has begun when – and only when – a leader of a major political party calls bullshit on AGW.

    Abbott has teased us but in reality hasn’t come close. When he replaces Hunt with Bernardi the moment may be close, but until then we will just have to roll with the continuing scam.

  21. handjive

    Quote: jupes #1308843, posted on May 17, 2014 at 6:59 pm-

    “However you will know that the end of the scam has begun when – and only when – a leader of a major political party calls bullshit on AGW.
    Abbott has teased us but in reality hasn’t come close. “

    I wanted to post exactly what you say there.

    Then I thought I better ‘oogle’ first.
    December 02, 2009

    In the last 24 hours, Tony Abbott has come under fire for his comments on the veracity of climate change. The media has seized on his claim to a small local Victorian paper that “climate change is crap”.

    In the context of his leadership this is curious as Mr Abbott seems to have spun 180 degrees in his estimation of human influenced climate change in as little as a few hours / votes.

    The paper in question happened to be the Pyrenees Advocate and the Editor of the paper, Craig Wilson, was there when those words were uttered. (Via ABC)

    Abbott’s words.
    . . .
    As for “Bengtsson-gate”, May I quote Mark Steyn:

    “This was not a good week for the climate cultists.”

    Quite so.

Comments are closed.