Climate Change Hysteria XIII

    Do not think about, write about or deal with  human behavior without determining the effects of incentives.

    We’re politicians and we don’t care how much you know, we just care what you believe.

     Bill Nye, the smartly promoted “Science Guy” was being interviewed in relation to the U.S. government’s new hysterical rendering of “Climate Change.” Nye was in support. When reminded of the failure of the prediction, after Hurricane Katrina, that hurricane activity would reach horrible levels and that hurricane activity had decreased, not increased, Bill Nye gave this reasoned reply, “Hurricane Shmurricane,” thereby winning the debate.

    “It may be difficult to imagine, but Superstorm Sandy, which struck the east coast of the U.S. on October 29, 2012, was not the most intense storm to strike the New York and New Jersey area in the last 200 years.”

    In what is seen below, the assumption is that we must silent these dissenters by whatever our zeal requires because we’re so right that others don’t count. This fevered attacking of disagreement is characteristic of a cult, not reasoned scientific debate.

    Like the young man who believes he invented sex, the current California drought and wildfires are presented by the media as being the worst of all times, caused, of course, by Man Made Climate Change. There have been much longer droughts and much larger wildfires in California and elsewhere long before SUVs, freeways and the horrible abuses of modern living.

National Post
Peter Foster
Climate McCarthyism

Will a climate skeptic have to be burned at the stake before people catch on that something medieval has gripped science?

Anybody who imagines that the theory of projected catastrophic manmade global warming is a matter of reason — or “settled” science — is woefully naïve. It is religion. Perceived infidelity leads to harsh moral condemnation. Heresy must be silenced.


   Punishment of heretics is not new. It’s just applied to Climate Change Deniers. World wide temperatures, as defined by The Believers, have not increased in 17 years. How this non-change has produced the evils attributed to it remains unexplained.

An egregious example occurred this week when, less than a month after agreeing to join the Academic Advisory Council of the London-based Global Warming Policy Foundation, GWPF, one of the world’s leading skeptical organizations, the eminent Swedish climatologist Lennart Bengtsson announced that he felt forced to resign. He had come under assault from supposed “colleagues” all over the world. Professor Bengtsson, who is approaching 80, said he was concerned not only for his health, but for his safety.

Described as “a kindly, mild-mannered Swedish grandfather,” Professor Bengtsson has had a long and distinguished international career in meteorology and climate research. He was head of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg from 1991 to 2000. In 2000 he became a professor at the University of Reading. Since 2008, he has been Director of the International Space Science Institute in Bern, Switzerland. He has won numerous awards, is a member of many learned societies, and has over 200 publications to his name.

Professor Bengtsson said his decision to join the GWPF had led to “enormous group pressure … from all over the world,” which he found unbearable. In his letter of resignation, he noted that he did not see how he would be able to conduct his normal work if the onslaught continued. “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.” Put succinctly, he had become the victim of a witch hunt. Nigel Lawson, the former British Chancellor of the Exchequer who formed the GWPF, responded that it was “an appalling state of affairs, and your reference to McCarthyism is fully warranted.”


    True believers, you see, can do anything to opponents. Ask the kulaks of the Ukraine who died because Stalin knew collective farming was best. Ask any of the persecuted groups throughout history–Those who know The Truth are just so superior the rest of us are Untermenschen–subhumans in our knowledge and understanding.

David Henderson, chairman of the GWPF’s academic council and a former chief economist for the OECD, noted that Professor Bengtsson had suffered “a degree of intolerance, and a rejection of the principle of open scientific inquiry, which are truly shocking.”

Professor Bengtsson said that most protests about his decision to join the GWPF came from the U.S., where the administration of Barack Obama has become almost deranged on climate, which the president has picked as a “legacy issue.”


   It will be a legacy issue and the judgment of history will not be kind. All that money spent on the hysterical pursuit of leprechauns.

Perhaps the degree of vituperation is related to the fact that alarmist reports, such as the recent voluminous U.S. National Climate Assessment Report, NCAR, now tend to be ignored. This is not analogous to the boy who cried wolf. The wolf turned up. This is more like the boy who cried unicorn.

Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, suggested that the NCAR established that the phrase “climate change” had now become virtually meaningless. All bad weather is now climate change. All climate change is caused by humans.

Professor Bengtsson has long expressed skepticism about the certainty professed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, the fount of “official” climate science. He has in particular questioned its downplaying of the significance for its models of the lack of warming in the 21st century.

In an interview with Dutch journalist Marcel Crok, Professor Bengtsson said “The whole concept behind IPCC is basically wrong.” He rejected the claim that there was any scientific consensus, and said that skepticism was the proper stance of a scientist.

Nevertheless the IPCC, helped by a general lack of skepticism in the media, has so far survived numerous critiques. In the wake of the Climategate and Glaciergate scandals, a report by the InterAcademy Council, a representative group of national science academies, suggested that the IPCC needed an overhaul, criticized its head, Rajendra Pachauri, for “advocacy,” acknowledged that there was indeed a debate over climate science, and recommended that the IPCC look at alternative models.

The report was buried without trace, while Mr. Pachauri continues to spout alarm and advocate for grand global policies.

However, more recently, two of the IPCC’s own lead authors, Richard Tol and Robert Stavins, have come out with sharp criticisms. Professor Tol said that the Summary for Policymakers had been sexed up to sound more alarmist. Mr. Stavins suggested — as has been suggested before — that they should be called “Summaries by Policymakers,” since governments remove anything that is politically inconvenient.

Many scientists appear all too eager to aid the political dirty work, whether from moral conviction or professional self-interest. Perhaps now criticism of the IPCC will stick. Indeed, some believe that Professor Bengtsson’s persecution may wind up being more of a coup for the skeptical community than his original decision to associate himself with the GWPF.

If this scandal receives the coverage it deserves (can’t wait for the coverage in the Globe and Mail and the Toronto Star), then it may at last make the public — which has largely lost interest in climate — realize that this is not merely a policy non-issue; it represents one of the greatest corruptions of both science and public policy in living memory.

If that realization dawns, the kindly Swedish professor may not have been persecuted in vain. Meanwhile, the next time somebody asks why there aren’t more publicly skeptical climate scientists, just quote the case of Lennart Bengtsson.


    Watch this one unfold. The True Believers are wrong and it will be demonstrated. One more reason for me to live a long life. I need to see this. I could be wrong, but I’m not.

Government Job or Respect–Which’ll It Be?
Cheerio and ttfn,
Grant Coulson, Ph.D.
Author, “Days of Songs and Mirrors: A Jacobite in the ‘45.”
Cui Bono–Cherchez les Contingencies


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: