Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Twitter
Support

 

Recent posts
Recent comments
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace
« The MSM covers Bengtsson | Main | Diary dates, comedy edition »
Wednesday
May142014

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.
"

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

Reader Comments (164)

Thanks TinyCO2 (May 15, 2014 at 12:08 PM) for an excellent summary of the “rationally optimistic” view on this event.
On your point about bullying, the problem with this argument is that the warmists got it in first over the retraction of Lewandowsky's “Recursive Fury” paper. I've had a long correspondence with the Guardian Readers' Editor, who defends Nuccitelli's accusation of bullying (and implicitly, Nuccitelli's accusation of lying against the editors of the journal when they said that they hadn't been bullied).
The Guardian Ombudsman's position seems to be that, even if there's no evidence of bullying, we sceptics seem to be the kind of people who would bully. Case proved.

May 15, 2014 at 1:23 PM | Registered Commentergeoffchambers

The climate change industry, like the pharmaceutical industry isn't about science , it's about money.

Some pretty heavy bullying.


The authors of two papers published by the British Medical Journal have publicly retracted statements they made about the frequency of side effects experienced by people taking statins, following a charge by an Oxford professor that the information was wrong and could endanger lives.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/may/15/statins-bmj-statement-professor-collins-side-effects

May 15, 2014 at 1:26 PM | Unregistered Commenteresmiff

I turned down a job teaching nurses at the local 'university' because it seems to me that the British education industry is as corrupt as the climate change industry.Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised at the behaviour of academics.

May 15, 2014 at 1:28 PM | Unregistered Commenteresmiff

esmiff
Marginally off topic but the decision to make nursing a graduate profession was another example of academia "hoovering up" anything it could (semi-)legitimately lay its hands on.
My aunt was a matron for 20 years and found the concept laughable. She said it would deprive nursing of the best nurses (in the true sense of the word 'to nurse') and 30 years on she has been proved right. Nursing per se is now beneath them and the ones who genuinely care for people can no longer qualify.
There are exceptions of course, before too many people jump down my throat!

May 15, 2014 at 1:59 PM | Registered CommenterMike Jackson

Nick Stokes (11:12 AM): the messages to Phil Jones are not much worse than responses I have received on alarmists sites when I acknowledged my ignorance, and raised such questions as: “How does CO2 act as a greenhouse gas?” with the supplementary: “How can it be such an effective greenhouse gas, considering how little of it there is in the atmosphere?” If any of the other warmists found them reprehensible, they managed to keep remarkably quiet about it. The responses on sceptical sites were considerably more pleasant, if no more informative; they are both questions that no-one has yet managed to answer satisfactorily.

May 15, 2014 at 2:06 PM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Mike Jackson. Totally agree. Yes, it is laughable until you realise that the head of intensive care and the head of mental health in this area are both nurses who may have no substantial educational qualifications. I knew the intensive care guy. Low / middling quality human being.

See Mid Staffordshire for details.

May 15, 2014 at 2:44 PM | Unregistered Commenteresmiff

So, who have been the main sponsors of the Guardian's massive climate propaganda effort. Shell and money laundering giant, HSBC.


Climategate: George Monbiot, the Guardian and Big Oil

But who is it that sponsors the Guardian?s Environment pages and eco conferences? Why, only that famous non-fossil-fuel company Shell. (Though I notice their logo no longer appears on top of the Guardian?s eco pages: has the Guardian decided the relationship was just too embarrassing to be, er, sustainable?)

And which company has one of the largest carbon trading desks in London, cashing in on industry currently worth around $120 billion ? an industry which could not possibly exist without pan-global governmental CO2 emissions laws ? BP (which stands for British Petroleum)

And how much has Indian steel king Lakshmi Mittal made from carbon credits thanks to Europe?s Emissions Trading Scheme? £1 billion.

And which companies were the CRU scientists revealed cosying up to as early as 2000 in the Climategate emails? There?s a clue in this line here: ?Had a very good meeting with Shell yesterday.?

And how much was Phil Jones, director of the discredited CRU, found to have collected in grants since 1990? £13.7 million ($22.7 million)

And why does this Executive Vice-Chairman of Rothschild?s bank sound so enthusiastic in this (frankly terrifying) letter about the prospects of the ?new world order? (his phrase not mine) which result from globally regulated carbon trading?

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100019523/climategate-george-monbiot-is-in-the-pay-of-big-oil/


New young tail wagging, little, Guardian socialist Owen Jones, sponsored by HSBC.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bnria83CcAEkpeY.jpg:large

May 15, 2014 at 3:01 PM | Unregistered Commenteresmiff

For the record I do comment in a "warmist" blog, where I have obvious and profound differences with the host both in world view and in the interpretation of climate science. However I do not go around there eg disparaging the host's associations, or being casually offensive.

I think it should be just obvious that visiting and commenting to a blog is like being invited for a discussion in somebody else's home, and a modicum of appropriate behaviour is strictly in order. Everything else is an attempt at stirring up the worst in all of us, aka "trolling".

May 15, 2014 at 6:32 PM | Registered Commenteromnologos

I have asked Gavin on Twitter for examples of "bad faith" by the GWPF. I am sure he will not answer my request. Is anybody aware of any example having been pushed forward yet?

May 15, 2014 at 6:33 PM | Registered Commenteromnologos

>[UEA] Response: "There are none on record".

Universities, eh? 'None' is singular - is that what they mean by creative writing?

May 15, 2014 at 8:41 PM | Unregistered CommenterJames P

Mike Jackson

Agree entirely. It's what used to be called a vocation, but now excludes most of those who would regard it as such.

May 15, 2014 at 8:47 PM | Registered Commenterjamesp

James P Usage (and the C.O.D) says that "none" can equally well be plural.

"none of them have found it"
"none but fools have ever believed it"
(examples from C.O.D.)

May 16, 2014 at 12:47 AM | Unregistered Commentersplitpin

Splitpin: James P is correct – the “none” in the university answer should be singular; the C.O.D. examples given referred directly to plurals (“them” and “fools”), so would be correct with the use of a plural reference for “none”.

Pedantic Rodent (a sibling of Radical’s).

May 16, 2014 at 10:39 AM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

Radical - My understanding is that the university was asked "for copies of the threats". So plural sounds correct to me.

But why am I sticking up for the UEA?.

May 16, 2014 at 3:47 PM | Unregistered Commentersplitpin

InfoYour post has been submitted.

Your post has been submitted successfully and will appear shortly.