No dissent will be tolerated:
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 expect[ed] 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 expect[ed] anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.
This isn’t science, and hasn’t been for quite a while.
More thoughts from Anthony Watts. And Judith Curry:
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.
By their fruits shall ye know them. As Cato noted, this just shows that they realized after the Climategate emails, and no one was sanctioned, that they could do this with impunity.
I was bashing a few trolls (elsewhere) on this earlier, who were trying to distract and evade by questioning the McCarthy reference. I eventually pointed out that this is much more like Lysenkoism than McCarthyism because it’s a political response to a scientific position, not a political response to a bunch of Soviet operatives, communist subversives, and whatnot.
But upon thinking about it, and the amount of scientific awards Lennart Bengsston has been awarded for his work on climate, his inherent honesty and courage, he strikes me much more as Erwin Rommel, whom the Nazis murdered, blaming his death on a British air attack because such a high-level defection by someone so lauded would cause too many people to question “the cause”.
Bengsston was a long time skeptic, but an acknowledged expert on climate science, one of Europe’s preeminent in the field who did award winning work on Arctic warming. But the moment he decided to join the GWPF he was as disloyal as Rommel to a regime or worldview whose mindset is little different.
Heritics must be destroyed. Probably the only reason they aren’t burned at the skake is that would release too much CO2. However, warmists never seem to mind when they release tons of CO2 flying to global conferences (in warm and distant locations, at someone else’s expense) so they may not mind burning people who dare disagree with the One True Religion.
As can be seen with Gore’s sudden wealth, there are millions to be made in using climate debate to choose winners or losers. McCarthy isn’t quite the right comparison. It is more a protection racket.
Yes, of course, “colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc.” (taken from Bengtsson’s resignation letter) is exactly the same as murdering your own general.
What Bengtsson seems to want is the ability to take a controversial position and not be criticized for it. Well, I want to date a supermodel. I suspect that both our desires are going to be thwarted.
But the position he might’ve taken is only controversial to the members of a doomsday cult, and all he’s said (throughout much of his career) is that we’re probably not all about to die in some nutty climate disaster. At this point, many climate scientists and special interests do not want you to hear that message, some because the money might stop, and others because they really believe that the Earth can only be saved if everyone agrees with them.
So far their usual tactic has been to dismiss anyone who argues otherwise as a paid shill, an ignorant moron, or downright evil, but Bengtsson is obviously not ignorant about the climate (over 250 published papers and numerous awards), he’s not a paid shill because he’s retired, and pretty obviously not evil. So it calls for threats and intimidation to shut him up.
They claim a 97 percent consensus, but only until they can find and eliminate (from science) the three percent who they think disagrees. Then all will be well.
He’s not -taking- the controversial position.
He’s trying to interact with people that have controversial positions.
Even that is “over the top” for climate deniers.
I agree with Chris 100%. And what Senator McCarthy was saying was just “words, not stick and stones”, so there is a good question regarding the harm done at that time.
Yes, of course, “colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc.” (taken from Bengtsson’s resignation letter) is exactly the same as murdering your own general.
Because comparisons are only relevant, if the things being compared are exactly the same? This might surprise you, but the entirety of comparative rhetoric never compares things which are exactly the same. It is not even remotely the point of the exercise.
Karl, Chris was using sarcasm. By sarcastically emphasizing “exactly the same”, he was suggesting that they weren’t similar enough to be worthy of a meaningful analogy. Do you really think otherwise? I’m commenting here, below your first comment on Chris’ usage, but I’m only doing so because you bring up “exactly the same” twice more below, with increasing scornfulness, scornfulness that is inappropriate since it is based on taking a sarcastic comment literally.
That’s quite a charitable view, Bob. I don’t share it.
“What Bengtsson seems to want is the ability to take a controversial position and not be criticized for it”
He didn’t say he wanted no criticism. He’s saying the level of opprobium is enough to make him fear for his health and safety.
So now you list for us, Gerrib, the precise criticism Bengtsson received. You’re suggesting that the level of criticism oughtn’t bother Bengtsson overmuch…that it’s not enough to worry about his health and safety. You’re implying that the criticism is typical int he scientific community. To make that claim you’ll have to tell us the precise criticism he received.
Precise.
Tell us exactly what was said/written/conveyed to him.
Until you can precisely list the criticism, (and you can’t), then how can you justify saying that it’s not something that justifies, as Bengtsson says “…and will even start to worry about my health and safety. ”
Until you know the nature and severity of the criticism, how can you POSSIBLY say that it’s not enough to warrant Bengtssons actions? Until you know what was said to him how can you accuse him of not wanting any criticism?
You effing cannot. You don’t know what you’re goddam talking about.
Until you know the nature and severity of the criticism, how can you POSSIBLY say that it’s not enough to warrant Bengtssons actions? Until you know what was said to him how can you accuse him of not wanting any criticism? I can only go by the examples listed in his letter of resignation. None of the examples listed would put any reasonable person in any fear of harm. If he has more examples, than he should list them. Considering the amount of crap thrown at me in this forum, I have to assess Bengtsson as exceptionally thin-skinned.
Considering the amount of crap thrown at me in this forum
I have to admit I had never considered you to be a martyr, Chris. Now that you have brought it to my attention, I still don’t.
Considering the amount of crap thrown at me in this forum, I have to assess Bengtsson as exceptionally thin-skinned.
You earn this crap in this forum. You can choose not to earn it either by leaving or by learning to think and argue. For example, you posted previously that a comparison wasn’t “exactly the same”. That is a profound display of ignorance of a significant tool of debate.
Chris did not earn the personal taunts that he receives, nor the other kinds of personal animosity that is thrown at him. If his arguments are so poor, there would be no need for all the “Grand Admiral Of the Fleet” comments which disrespect his service to our country. There is a lot of other rudeness as well (even simple things, like calling him “Gerrib” to his face – I’m sure Chris doesn’t like it anymore than Rand likes to be addressed as “Simberg”). The rudeness Chris receives is personal in nature, and it is utterly unnecessary, particularly if you want to refer to what goes on here as “debate” and “thinking and arguing”.
Oh, and by the way:
Chris, I disagree with you. If the man says he is worried about his safety, I’m inclined to take him at his word. So, I agree with Gregg, but disagree with the way he said it.
Chris, I disagree with you. If the man says he is worried about his safety, I’m inclined to take him at his word.
As Rand has pointed out “safety” is an emotive excuse often used to hide many a sin.
No, I’ve never pointed out anything of the kind. My thesis has nothing to do with this issue.
Just admit it Rand. Anyone who fears for their personal safety and health, indeed anyone who doesn’t tell people to run out and grab downed power lines, is an oil industry shill with something to hide, and is probably a Satan worshiping member of the Nazi party and the leader of a pedophile ring.
As Yoda would say, “The logic is not strong in this one”, or maybe “Global warming leads to fear, and fear leads to panic, and panic leads to desperation, and desperation leads to abject stupidity.”
Obviously George it goes without saying that the reason I only use my last initial on the net is that I fear for my safety.
Since I’ve said it, it must be true, right?
Chris did not earn the personal taunts that he receives
Ok, why? I’m not disagreeing that the rudeness tends to get personal. But you say he doesn’t deserve it? That requires evidence to support your position.
What I see Chris Gerrib do in this thread, is first, proof by what you allege is sarcasm (note that Chris doesn’t actually support his assertion in any way) and asserting that because Chris willingly faces a few personal taunts in these forums, then Bengsston has no right to complain about what Bengsston alleges are far more serious threats to his career and person than anything that our fearless protagonist has yet faced. That’s what passes for argument and reason by our dear friend, Chris.
I’m tired of it. There’s a group of people, including you BTW, who really need to step their game up. It’s really a shame, I think, that most counterviews expressed here can be easily dispelled by a quick look through a list of the most common fallacies and debate mistakes. When people commit the same errors of reason, year after year, without any attempt to improve themselves, they lose my respect.
What value does Gerrib’s smug, glib, empty assertions add? Is he deliberately trying to sabotage the positions he takes? Doesn’t he get it?
Gerrib earned the “Admiral” moniker (and its various forms) for constantly using “appeal to authority” fallacy, most often his personal authority, in debate. It’s thrown back at him by many commenters to make it clear he can claim whatever title he desires, but such a claim will not sway us in a debate.
Leland – So if your doctor or your lawyer tells you “you should do X” or “Y will cause a problem” that’s an “appeal to authority” argument and should be ignored? I use my personal expertise when it’s relevant – for example, when talking about how the US military operates. Or in this case, my personal experiences as a business professional.
Bengsston alleges threats to his personal safety. If he went to the police and the only example he could offer them was “people won’t co-author stuff with me” I suspect the police would be unsympathetic.
In addition, nobody else here has any personal knowledge of Bengsston and what’s happening to him. The only information anybody has is his publicly-released letter. What value I or anybody else place on that is a matter of opinion, judgment and personal experience.
Since in my personal experience I’ve never had anybody threaten my personal safety based on professional opinions I took at work, nor do I think climate scientists are a collection of mustachio-twirling villains, I find myself evaluating Bengsston’s claims dubiously.
Gerrib writes:
“Leland – So if your doctor or your lawyer tells you “you should do X” or “Y will cause a problem” that’s an “appeal to authority” argument and should be ignored?”
And you’ve never heard of the concept of getting a second opinion?
See now Gerrib employs the straw man fallacy.
Karl, I presume you want everyone here to make better arguments. I hope you’ll consider tutoring anyone here who makes a fallacious argument, without concern for their ideological position. I look forward to your contributions.
Heck, now bob’s is building straw men. How about not presuming what Karl is doing and taking him at his word that Gerrib needs to improve his argument. After all Gerrib just suggested that all doctors make decisions by appealing to authority. Personally, I choose doctors that make suggestions based on empirical data collected from examination of their patients. Not ones who think the degree deferred on them make them able to conclude results without examination of facts and evidence.
I cite for example Gerribs assessment of Zimmerman’s injury with a simple look at a fuzzy screenshot. No examination of the quality of the image, resolution of the picture, the focal point, or the written statements of medical professionals and officers at the scene. Now, you could claim I’m deferring to the authority of paramedics and officers at the scene. That would be an interesting argument, since Gerrib did not. Actually, I deferred to their first hand knowledge from the examination of the patient, and did not defer to similarly accredited talking heads that made their assessment the same way as Gerrib. I also looked for evidence from multiple sources that confirmed the authority’s observation. It is what rational people do.
I do not accept a doctors opinion simply because they have a degree. Fools do that, so I’m not surprised by Gerrib’s argument.
“There is a lot of other rudeness as well (even simple things, like calling him “Gerrib” to his face ”
Calling him a grand admiral is mildly insulting but that label didn’t spring up in a vacuum. It was because he made appeals to his authority on certain subjects and other people here have a greater claim to such authority. I agree that the name calling doesn’t add anything to an argument.
I am, however, unfamiliar with the notion that calling a person by their last name is an insult. That is a new one to me.
“I am, however, unfamiliar with the notion that calling a person by their last name is an insult. That is a new one to me.”
Hmmm. I’m a bit surprised this is a new idea for you. My guess is that it is not a new idea, but rather, I haven’t expressed the idea clearly enough. I referenced Rand, by the way, because Rand has, in the past, in reaction to a troll, expressed the desire to not be directly addressed as “Simberg”. The issue is second person vs third person: If I was writing a book review of Rand Simberg’s book, it would be completely appropriate to write something like “Simberg thoughtfully lays out a case for ….” But if I was asking Rand a question, I wouldn’t say “Simberg, what do you think about …”, because it is rude. It would be more polite to say “Mr. Simberg, what do you think about …” or, if you’re basically an equal (and not, say, a kid) you can you say “Rand, what do you think about….” If you disagree, that’s interesting, and it might reflect a regional and/or cultural difference between us.
“that’s interesting, and it might reflect a regional and/or cultural difference between us.”
Ya, where I live, it isn’t insulting to be referred to by your last name. For some people it is like a nickname. But even if you do view it as an insult, it is incredibly mild to say the least.
It is nothing like being blamed for everything that has ever gone wrong in the world based on your skin color, which is the core Democrat attack against people they don’t like these days. #checkyourprivilege
“Considering the amount of crap thrown at me in this forum, I have to assess Bengtsson as exceptionally thin-skinned.”
No one wants to harm you though, or your career. There are no activist groups hounding your associates about you.
“I have to assess Bengtsson as exceptionally thin-skinned.”
He could be but it sounds like it is less the mean things people said about him and more the impact on his life from people severing personal and professional connections to him because of an intentional effort to intimidate people from participating in those relationships.
” I can only go by the examples listed in his letter of resignation.”
Translation of Gerrib: “I’m completely making this up. I have no idea what was said.”
“None of the examples listed would put any reasonable person in any fear of harm.”
Translation of Gerrib: Because he didn’t explicitly say what was said to him I, Gerrib, will assume the worst possible comments that supports my view.
“If he has more examples, than he should list them. ”
Why? Who said he should list them? He doesn’t give a single good hot diggety dam about informing YOU, Gerrib, of what was said to him. Resignation letters usually don’t list things like that.
Nevertheless, as he didn’t list them, explain to us the logic you used to arrive at the conclusion he was over-reacting.
“I’m completely making this up. I have no idea what was said.” Neither do you, Gregg.
You’re making one set of assumptions, namely that all climate scientists are mustachio-twirling villains, while I’m making another set of assumptions, namely that they are normal human beings.
all climate scientists are mustachio-twirling villains
That’s a whopper of a straw man.
Chris, here’s my opinion. Regarding the physical safety aspect, what I *imagine* what happened is that he received one (or a perhaps a very few) emails that were full of insults, angry words, and vaguely hints at physical violence (eg “you better watch your back. I know where you live.”). As a bleeding heart liberal, I’m very accepting of people’s varying emotional reactions to that sort of thing. There is no need for all of his peers to be mustachio-twirling villains – it would enough to satisfy my very lax requirements if there was one angry hothead who sent over-the-top emails.
My version doesn’t really sate those here looking for a narrative about vicious bullies, but I’m entitled to imagine things, and so are they.
“You’re making one set of assumptions, namely that all climate scientists are mustachio-twirling villains,”
It was probably the activists that were being threatening and ruining his relationships, not scientists. Democrat activists have been jumping a lot of sharks lately. Maybe someone should have the IRS look into their tax exempt status?
Considering the amount of crap thrown at me in this forum
The level of crap thrown at you in this forum is not exactly the same as the level of crap thrown at Dr. Bengtsson.
And unlike your earlier breezy assertion along these lines those differences matter here. For example, he claims that he will be “unable to conduct my normal work”. How has the crap thrown at you here prevented you from conducting your normal work? He claims “even start to worry about my health and safety”. Are you worrying about your health and safety due to the crap thrown at you here?
You come to this blog and throw more crap than a pissed off chimp and have the gall to complain about pushback?
Jeepers. An own goal by AGW supporters. And AGW supporters continue to defend them. Wise up, guys. Non-partisan non-scientists will have a simple reaction to this kind of thing: You-all are not scientists, you’re partisans and politicians. We don’t trust politicians.
I had the same reaction after climategate. Climate scientists cannot afford to be perceived as politicians, and they don’t seem to understand that. Most of us cannot follow the details of the science, so we must trust scientists, or ignore them.
I’m surprised that Bengtssons, being so intimidated by his mainstream peers, is so comfortable taking shots at them. If the situation is as he describes I would have expected him to quietly resign thus smoothing his return to the fold.
It all sounds to me like Bengtssons is the one doing the politic-ing.
Just what shots did he take at them? That part of the story seems to be missing.
Just what shots did he take at them? That part of the story seems to be missing.
Wow, George’s reading comprehension fails again:
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 expect[ed] 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 expect[ed] anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.
[glad you noticed!—eds]
Under these [sic] 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.
I was going to bold the bits that were attacks on the integrity of his colleagues in the climate science community, but that would be the entire letter.
Maybe I still need to point out the obvious to you, he accuses them of threatening and bullying him to the point that he claims to believe his safety is in danger.
If you believe that Bengtsson didn’t expect this letter to be made public you’re being willfully ignorant, and it’s absurd to think that this letter is less offensive to his colleagues in the climate science community than his involvement with GWPF, so any “pressure” put on him as a result of publication of the letter is going to be greater than the “pressure” he claims to have so far endured.
So what identifiable person was he “taking shots” at? And what is the motive or possible benefit for taking on a controversial job, quitting it in a week, and “taking shots” at unnamed “colleagues”?
what is the motive or possible benefit for taking on a controversial job, quitting it in a week, and “taking shots” at unnamed “colleagues”?
It’s a politicized issue, exaggeration and misrepresentation of the other side in the debate to discredit them is so common I struggle to take your question seriously.
So you, like a cultist, assume that Bengtsson has gone to the “other side” despite his long career in climatology, his 250+ papers, his awards for research on Arctic warming and other important topics in the field, and his devotion to science. Do you think a re-education camp would help him, or should he just be shunned?
What exactly is the “other side”, and why are people who aren’t running around like headless chickens considered the enemy?
What exactly is the “other side”
Apparently you’re unaware that the AGW debate has been sharply divided along political lines for some time (a couple of decades) so there are lots of people on the CAGW side, and lots of people on the CAGW is BS side, with precious few souls such as myself who accept AGW, but aren’t convinced either way about the “C” in CAGW.
Now George, this is the bit you’re having trouble understanding, to the CAGW side the people in the CAGW is BS camp are “on the other side”, and to people in the CAGW is BS camp those in the CAGW camp are “on the other side”. Got that now?
It should be noted that Bengtsson has very strong anti left views, and was never in the CAGW camp:
It’s a shame that the GDR disappeared otherwise would have been able to offer one-way tickets there for these vurmande socialists. Now there’s unfortunately not many orthodox countries left soon and I surely do not imagine our romantic green Communists want a one-way ticket to North Korea. But if interested I gladly contribute to the trip as long as it concerns a utresebiljett. Perhaps you could arrange a Gallup study, then it can not be ruled out that I underestimated utresebehovet.
http://uppsalainitiativet.blogspot.se/2014/05/om-lennart-bengtssons-beklammande-fard.html
Yeah, I’m sure they’ll uncover the fact that he’s a closet Jew, or maybe a Nazi, or at the very least liked Margaret Thatcher. You know there has to be something seriously wrong with him.
Andrew, you seem to be suffering from the same problems as Gerrib:
What were the shots?
Who delivered the shots?
Neither of those questions were answered in the letter you post.
So you have not supplied the story George says is missing.
So, you think they attacked him because he would later write a resignation letter saying he’s shocked at the actions of the climate science community – for attacking him, and each of these people sent him a nasty e-mail because they were irate that he didn’t actually name them in the said resignation letter.
O_o
Did they use a crystal ball or do they have access to a time machine?
Could you please put together a more coherent defense, because that logic wouldn’t fly with a jury of paranoid schizophrenics with learning disabilities suffering from heroin withdrawals.
So, you think they attacked him because he would later write a resignation letter saying he’s shocked at the actions of the climate science community – for attacking him, and each of these people sent him a nasty e-mail because they were irate that he didn’t actually name them in the said resignation letter.
No George, that’s not what I said, meant, or implied.
Once again your reading comprehension fails you.
I will add though that while some people may possibly have criticised him for getting involved with GWPF, Bengtsson’s attack isn’t against those named critics, it’s against the “world-wide” mainstream climate science “community” so he’s tarred everyone sympathetic to the mainstream view who might possibly have worked with him in the future.
Um, that’s utterly nuts, but is probably how the mainstream climate science community actually works.
In normal fields, if a top scientist or engineer points out a flaw in something like an O-ring, or writes an article saying that the aerospace industry is too risk averse and conservative, they aren’t viciously attacked with a deluge of e-mails from everyone holding an AIAA membership, and 99 percent of aerospace engineers don’t treat them like a pariah. They don’t even do that if a scientist joins an organization that advocates for alternate forms of transport instead of big Boeings.
About the only people that do act like that are certain religious groups and cults like Scientology. Bengtsson has essentially said “Maybe there aren’t actually nine circles of Hell. The Church may have overreached in its interpretation of scriptures on that point, and perhaps should dial back some of the alarmism..”
The climatologists response is “Heretic! Blasphemer! Excommunicate him! Avoid associating with the vile traitor at all costs!”
Some analogies aren’t worth sh!t George.
“Could you please put together a more coherent defense, because that logic wouldn’t fly with a jury of paranoid schizophrenics with learning disabilities suffering from heroin withdrawals.”
HO HO HO HO the very best of the year so far.
I’m going to steal that one.
While none of us knows anything about the facts, I’d say that Andrew’s point is clear. This event is a PR goldmine for anti-AGW, and a disaster for AGW. Thus, if Bengsston is anti-AGW and not too honest, he has found a good way to strike a blow in the “war”: pretend that he has been threatened and overwhelmed by jillions of furious emails and other types of pressure, resign in tears and denounce the pressure. While I see various pro-AGW types “doubting his story”, there isn’t much more they can do, and in the meantime anti-AGW types now have a very public example of a Galileo hounded by the Church of AGW. It’s all based on his word.
I would add that the pro-AGW forces have not been helpful to themselves. Most of them have said stuff like, What does the old senile fool expect? That’s what you get when you ___. So even though they themselves have no more idea than I how many and what type of emails he got, they have essentially ratified his story by saying that they think lots of people on their side would do just what he says was done.
I remember when a story went around that Newt Gingrich had made a statement implying that blacks don’t like to work and the NAACP should do something about it, or the like. Believe me, my first reaction wasn’t, Sounds good. It wasn’t even, I don’t agree with a statement like that. My reaction was, He never said that. Not because I think Newt Gingrich is a saint or know a thing about his views on blacks, but because I understand that in the current world of American politics, that statement would put him out of business, probably permanently. The leftists who were making the claim don’t know that; they think you can be publicly racist on the right. I knew better. So I looked up what he actually said, and of course he said nothing of the sort. Not that I could convince my leftist friends that if they had their heads on straight they should have known that from the start.
So that’s what I mean here. AGW supporters should have reacted that this is kind of thing is impossible, didn’t really happen. And that if it did happen – so hard to believe – they denounce it in the strongest possible terms.
Anyhow, that isn’t happening, and I’m afraid that’s a QED.
While none of us knows anything about the facts, I’d say that Andrew’s point is clear.
It’s been a bit puzzling to me that George and Gregg don’t get it, was it me or them??
Obviously it’s them and it’s down to them being just a bit thick.
Andrew, part of his point about your point was that all the AGW folks seem to agree that the man should be ostracized and shunned, if not far worse, which is what he says happened to him. It’s kind of like a Jew pointing out that a certain group deluged him with anti-Semitic e-mails, and instead of denial and condemnation of such acts, everyone in the accused group screams “He’s a dirty lying Jew! You can’t trust them! They lie and lie and lie.”
Andrew, part of his point about your point was that all the AGW folks seem to agree that the man should be ostracized and shunned, if not far worse,
No, Mike says that many AGW folk have made the assumption that Bengsston’s description is accurate (which could well be naive of them). If he should be ostracized and shunned in my opinion it would be from his comments in his resignation letter, not because he joined the GWPF.
You left out “while on crack”, George.
Now lets see, the guy joins GWPF , gets abusive emails and threats of future non co-operation, resigns for the reasons he gave and somehow the warmist trolls make him out to be the bad guy. Got it.
Study suggesting global warming is exaggerated was rejected for publication in respected journal because it was ‘less than helpful’ to the climate cause, claims professor
All of this talk about people being blackballed for their views on AGW are poppycock. Nothing but pure unadulterated science going on here.
Here’s a link to an interesting memo from German meteorologists that was just released. It says in part: