So says the Onion, Germany’s finest news source.

This has so many shades of “Chinese academy endorses NIPCC report”. The back story: Lennart Bengtsson, sounding somewhere between very naive and emeritus, joins the GWPF, talking the usual nonsense (I believe most serious scientists are sceptics) indicating that either he really doesn’t know what’s going on, or is deliberately obfusticating. Now, it seems, his various respectable colleagues have pointed out his silliness to him. So he’s ditching the GWPF, because he doesn’t want to be an outcast. But he hasn’t got the grace to admit the foul-up is all his error.

Update: watching the wackos on this one is fun. There ought to be a prize for the most over-the-top Godwinism. So far the clear winner by quite a margin is NTZ with the gloriously hyperbolic Boko Haram Science…Thought-Tyranny, Vicious Hounding Shame, Blacken Climate Science Community. LB himself manages a merely silly It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. AW is dull; RP Jr is merely a tosser again, sigh.

Update: whilst LB has clearly gone off the rails wrt the GWPF, I should point out that he has a genuine solid scientific reputation; see his page at U Reading for example. And he has genuine recent publications in respectable journals as well. I went to ECMWF for their meteorology course for a month or two in ?1991? when I first joined BAS; he had just left as Director of ECMWF then, for MPI. His first publication was the year I was conceived.

Late update: Olle Häggström has a good background article on LB, available to anyone capable of speaking Foreign, or pressing the “translate” button in Chrome. Or, its up at Eli’s.

Climate Change Reconsidered – again

While you’re here, consider TPP’s review of NIPCC Climate Change Reconsidered II: Biological Impacts.

I win

Well, for the moment anyway:

lb

Update: Why?

Its interesting to ponder why LB has gone off the rails.

In they Are Mad As Hell And Not Going to Take it Anymore, Eli links to some (translated, thank heavens) Swedish provided by MW (originally here, thanks, but I got busy) wherein LB says:

I surely do not imagine our romantic green Communists want a one-way ticket to North Korea. But if interested I will gladly contribute to the trip as long as it concerns a one way exit.

This rather hints towards right-wing views, which would fit neatly in with the GWPF. I provide my own speculation in answer to comment 56 below. Oh yeah, and I wrote something in my post above, too :-)

DA also wonders. OH, in the comments notes that LB can appear a touch over-sensitive, which makes me wonder, again, whether his emails are entirely accurate.

Update: the Paper of Death

News about Lennart Bengtsson’s paper. It looks as though he may have been just a touch economical with the truth. Shades of Lindzen, Spencer et all to wearily al.: old folk who just can’t accept that sometimes, peer reviewers are right.

* Statement from IOP Publishing on story in The Times.
* Eli.
* expert reaction to claims climate research was ‘suppressed’ including LB (via QS)

The second referee is now available (see Eli and its now even worse for LB.

Refs

* Nigel Lawson’s climate-change denial charity ‘intimidated’ environmental expert
* Bengtsson burns his boats?-JA
* Lennart Bengtsson and his media gambit on climate change by MW at Uppsalainitiativet – some background.
* The Bengtsson Affair and the Global Warming Policy Foundation – by the GWPF’s David Henderson.

Comments

  1. #1 Marco
    2014/05/14

    Brave Sir Robin ran away.
    (“No!”)
    Bravely ran away away.
    (“I didn’t!”)
    When danger reared it’s ugly head,
    He bravely turned his tail and fled.
    (“no!”)
    Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about
    (“I didn’t!”)
    And gallantly he chickened out.

    ****Bravely**** taking (“I never did!”) to his feet,
    He beat a very brave retreat.
    (“all lies!”)
    Bravest of the braaaave, Sir Robin!
    (“I never!”)

    [Good suggestion, thanks, image added -W]

  2. #2 Neal J. King
    2014/05/14

    Perfect quote, Marco!

  3. #3 Andy Hurley
    Jersey
    2014/05/14

    Yeah real funny Marco , did you get a lot of kicks pulling off spiders legs when you were a kid?
    What has happened is shameful and you should hang your head.
    But I guess the Nazis still let the bands play right up until the Russians were on there doorstep and you are too stupid to appreciate that could quite clearly turn in to a “J’accuse” moment .
    Never let science interfere with your sixth form intellect is your motto I believe and my motto is [incivility suppressed -W]

    [Godwin; you lose. Mind you, LB already lost on the McCarthy version of Godwin -W]

  4. #4 Frank
    Sydney, Australia
    2014/05/14

    Even though I do not like the GWPF, the report of Lennart Bengtsson resigning due to what appears to be peer group pressure, has made me feel sad.

    [Why? What’s happened is that a bunch of his more clued-in friends have pointed out to him that the GWPF are a bunch of denialists, and the “all scientists are sceptics” schtick won’t wash. The GWPF fooled LB, but now he has woken up. Naturally, he’s embarrassed, and isn’t about to admit that he made a stupid mistake. Why does that make you sad? -W]

    And I know that some of the AGW deniers are going to say; and I am sure they will spin the story for all that it is worth.

  5. #5 GregH
    2014/05/14

    Frank, what’s the big deal? The GWPF is an “educational charity” (whatever their views on scientific scepticism), and if Mr. Bengtsson is resigning because he thinks that GWPF’s educational goals don’t align with his own, who are we to criticise?

  6. #6 AnOilMan
    Land of Tar And Sand
    2014/05/14

    That will leave GWPF hunting for someone less capable.

    I wonder if Tol is available. I bet he’s not going to be invited back to the IPCC.

  7. #7 And Then There's Physics
    2014/05/14

    AoM, What do you mean, “I wonder if Tol is available?”. He’s already there.

  8. #9 cRR Kampen
    2014/05/14

    AnOilMan, see second from below on http://www.thegwpf.org/who-we-are/academic-advisory-council/ .
    You were saying?

  9. #10 The Very Reverend Jebediah Hypotenuse
    2014/05/14


    That will leave GWPF hunting for someone less capable.

    Murray Salby may be available.

    Or there’s always Curry:
    http://judithcurry.com/2014/04/27/the-curry-factor-30-to-1/#comment-534846

  10. #11 Magnus W
    2014/05/14

    He has been commenting on the Swedish site that a few years ago got an award for spreading confusion about climate change… in a similar way as creationists spread confusion about evolution… handed out by the swedish skeptical society. So he knew about the issues long before he joined GWPF….

  11. #13 AnOilMan
    2014/05/14

    Didn’t know that.. Funny though. I mean, its pretty clear that he’s a political advocate.

    This lessens him further.

  12. #14 AnOilMan
    2014/05/14

    What about Delingpole? Didn’t he quit recently. Stating he has no clue what he’s been talking about all this time? That might make a good addition to the team. They could use more English advisers. Maybe they could go after the high school vote and bring on Anthony Watts?

  13. #15 toto
    2014/05/14

    Magnus W: now I know how the Vikings conquered half of Europe. They just went around screaming “KLIMATFÖRNEKARTRÄSKET” very loud and took over after the locals fled in terror.

  14. #16 BBD
    2014/05/14

    AOM

    Tol is on the advisory board of De Groene Rekenkammer too. A sort of Dutch GWPF.

    He gets about.

  15. #17 cRR Kampen
    2014/05/14

    While Delingpole called himself an expert on climatology because he holds an arts degree, I don’t think the GWPF is really looking for him. Because, well, merely an arts degree.

  16. #18 The Very Reverend Jebediah Hypotenuse
    2014/05/14


    Because, well, merely an arts degree.

    What about someone with a degree in classics, with a hereditary title, who can cure diseases AND prove that Obama was born in Kenya?

  17. #19 JM
    CA
    2014/05/14

    His resignation letter:

    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 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.

    With my best regards

    Lennart Bengtsson

  18. #20 Jim Balter
    United States
    2014/05/14

    “Even though I do not like the GWPF, the report of Lennart Bengtsson resigning due to what appears to be peer group pressure, has made me feel sad.”

    That’s silly. He said he resigned because he couldn’t stand all the criticism from people sincerely telling him he made a mistake.

    “And I know that some of the AGW deniers are going to say; and I am sure they will spin the story for all that it is worth.”

    Of course; so what? Today they’re claiming that the West Antarctic is slipping into the sea because of volcanoes and … get this … increasing sea ice.

  19. #21 cRR Kampen
    2014/05/14

    My, Reverend, you have a suggestion there. He has it all!

  20. #22 AnOilMan
    2014/05/14

    They really are under-representing the high school portion of science;
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/

    Anthony Watts would really help round out their team.

  21. #23 AnOilMan
    2014/05/14

    This school probably has some amazing professors who would be equally qualified to advise the GWPF;
    http://aveda.edu/

  22. #24 NikFromNYC
    2014/05/14

    “Naturally, he’s embarrassed, and isn’t about to admit that he made a stupid mistake. Why does that make you sad?”

    Nice try, propogandizing enabler of tyranny. His actual statement we extremely clear that he is resigning over harassment, not enlightenment, and note the blunt lack of any recantation. Your damage control doesn’t discount that this is a huge PR loss for alarmism, for these are very much not the words of a merely embarrassed dupe, but are those of someone in *fear* of further attacks on him, even physical ones:

    ““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.”

    [My heart bleeds for the poor dahling; he’s such a delicate flower. Perhaps someone who wilts so quickly shouldn’t have tried to push his way into the sunlight -W]

  23. #25 Kevin
    NYC
    2014/05/14

    It is very telling, and quite sad, that you make a joke out of this.

    [Is there anything better to do? No-one will take him seriously after this -W]

  24. #26 mtc
    2014/05/14

    “enormous group pressure” = “respectable colleagues have pointed out his silliness”.

    “worry about my health and safety” = “doesn’t want to be an outcast”

    Modern math?

  25. #27 Lars Karlsson
    2014/05/14

    “His actual statement we extremely clear that he is resigning over harassment, not enlightenment, and note the blunt lack of any recantation.”

    He is resigning because he lost the respect and confidence of many of his colleagues after joining.

    Also note that Bengtsson has a tendency of imagining oppression. Last week, for instance, he wrote a post for a Swedish denialist blog where he (without any evidence whatsoever) accused a number of Swedish academics of wanting to burn books.

    Link to translation of the post: https://translate.google.se/translate?hl=sv&sl=sv&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.klimatupplysningen.se%2F2014%2F05%2F10%2Flennart-bengtsson-kommenterar-dn-artikel%2F

  26. #28 Smokey
    2014/05/14

    NikFromNYC is exactly right. Connolley is wrong.

    But no matter. Not many readers visit here:

    https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=wattsupwiththat.com+vs+scienceblogs.com%2Fstoat

    [Try google news -W]

  27. #29 cRR Kampen
    2014/05/14

    Looks like someone needs another Sandy. Make her 900 hPa this time.

  28. #30 The Very Reverend Jebediah Hypotenuse
    2014/05/14

    +100 points to rhetorical defender of stupidity for:

    Nice try, propogandizing enabler of tyranny.

    With verbal chops like that, maybe the GWPF could use YOU, NikFromNYC.

    If you’re not too busy protecting teh blogs from evil warmists and all…

  29. #31 John Mashey
    http://www.desmogblog.com/user/john-mashey
    2014/05/14

    Most scientists are skeptics, most of the time, but Pseudoskeptics Are Not Skeptics.

    In this case, a reason might be TEC5 (“gone emeritus”) from my usual catalog, although often there are other ones that contribute. People more familair with him might suggest more.

  30. #32 Wunjo
    Austin, TX
    2014/05/14

    “Now, it seems, his various respectable colleagues have pointed out his silliness to him. So he’s ditching the GWPF, because he doesn’t want to be an outcast. ”

    This was exactly the Fr Alonso de Hojeda described his successful recantations during the Spanish Inquisition.

    [Well, no, it wasn’t. And I’m afraid the hyperbole contest is only open to bloggers, not just to commentators -W]

  31. #33 John Mashey
    2014/05/14

    BTW, see FOIA Facts 5 – Finds Friends Of GWPF.

    Email to Ed Wegman highlighted close relationships between UK’s main climate anti-science charity, Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), its counterparts in the US and Canada, and some key Congressional staffers.
    This emerged from a FOIA request that wasn’t even looking for it, but Wegman volunteered it, for which he should be thanked.

  32. #34 Margaret Hardman
    2014/05/14

    Ah, Smokey, or should I call you DB.

    If in doubt, refer to science as a popularity contest. Who gives a flying stuff how many people visit the tawdry and deluded site you moderate? It doesn’t make them right. Just like the storm in a teacup that was Murray Salby’s sacking.

    Singing it so sweetly like no one else could do
    Always trying something new
    Well, I thank You Lord
    For giving us pure smokey

  33. #35 GregH
    2014/05/14

    Smokey: “NikFromNYC is exactly right.”

    Nice try, propogandizing enabler of tyranny.

    He certainly has a way with words. That PhD sure comes in handy when you want to impress people on the Internet.

  34. #36 Karl Larsson
    2014/05/14

    Lars K: It takes an alarmist to interpret even the (lousy) english translation as an actual accusation of that kind.

  35. #37 John Mashey
    2014/05/14

    But Margaret, Smokey (aka dbstealey) and co provided such wonderful pseudoskepticism data (2000 comments collected on reaction to a stimulus. Anyone familiar with the real world should have expressed real skepticism, not pseudoskepticism:
    NEVER accept an unsupported-by-evidence one-sided description of an employment dispute without hearing the other side. That applies to many other things as well. The overpowerlingly domiannt reaction was: Salby accuses in an email, therefore massive guilt, evil, corruption, conspiracy.

    Although Joanne Nova won the conspiracy-ideation race with 28 examples, dbstealey took the silver @ 17, by my count.,but in a bit, others can see how they would rate them.

    NikFromNYC contributed one of the jolliest at WUWT:
    ‘{NikFromNYC} says:
    July 9, 2013 at 2:21 am
    He is Rosa Parks. He is Timothy Leary. He is Murry Salby.”

    And at Bishop Hill, TheBIgYinJames worried:
    ‘I’ll tell you what will delight the warmists. The sceptic community foolishly embracing a story which later turns out to be false. Again, disappointed and horrified with the tribalism of both sides.*
    Jul 11, 2013 at 11:25 AM | {TheBigYinJames}’
    (There was certainly massive tribalism from one side. From the other, one might doubt.)

    and
    ‘I’m not saying they are false, I’m saying they may turn out to be false. And until we’re sure (or surer), we look like a bunch of mouth-foamers.**
    Jul 11, 2013 at 12:33 PM | {TheBigYinJames}’
    ** Yes, thanks to the numerous commenters.

    And then later at Bishop Hill
    ‘it wouldn’t surprise me if somewhere there is a private blog where your and Dung’s responses are being measured, recorded and laughed at by a group of people – perhaps even
    as another Lew-esque psychology experiment. Expect the paper “The Unending Gullibility of Deniers” soon. …
    Jul 31, 2013 at 8:44 AM | 23{TheBigYinJames}’

    Maybe someone else is doing that, but that’s not the title of my report, although it’s not a bad suggestion and would certainly fit.

  36. #38 OPatrick
    2014/05/14

    John, please can you ensure that you append the peerless comment (apologies, I can’t remember who coined it) ‘he sits at the back of the bus, stoned, talking bollocks’ to the NikFromNYC quote whenever you mention it.

    Ta.

  37. #39 John Mashey
    2014/05/14

    OPatrick: yes I thought of that, but I couldn’t remember exactly which post it was, and the search engine here didn’t help much.
    FInd it and link to the comment.

  38. #41 John Mashey
    2014/05/14

    OPatrick, thanks: I’ve added that gem as a possible explanation, although in context, it was clear that NikFromNYC bought Salby’s story, but Galileo analogy was already in heavy use.

  39. #42 NikFromNYC
    2014/05/14

    Smug, dismissive certainty.

    For the record, I think Salby is crazy, but only to the extent that his hypothesis is presented as a smart guy’s hypothesis in opposition to mere politics.

    Thank you William for not being a censorious bastard yourself on your own blog.

  40. #43 bigcitylib
    http://bigcitylib.blogspot.ca/
    2014/05/15

    Pielke Jr. link goes nowhere. PS. I am astounded to discover I’ve read your blog for over 7 years (since you quit). It’s like I’ve wasted my middle age coming here.

    [Link fixed; its a comment at the Onion. Waste o life: hey, you only have to read this stuff: I’ve spent even longer writing it -W]

  41. #44 Aaron M
    Darwin NT
    2014/05/15

    I asked an 11 year old to explain LB’ s letter to me.

    [Well, I’m sorry your reading comprehension is so poor that you need an 11 year old -W]

    Even she described it as a man being pressured to leave.

    [And there you have the problem: 11 year olds can miss subtleties. You ought to try talking to adults instead. What it is, is a man saying that he has been pressured to leave. But not offering any evidence -W]

    It seems the words have different meaning for you. Where LB declares he is on the receiving end of ‘enormous group pressure from all over the world’ you interpret it as LB having made an error and unwilling to blame himself?

    [Yes. Until we see the emails it will be hard to know for sure, but my suspicion is that people have been pointing out his error to him; and he is too stiff-necked to admit its his own fault -W]

    “…worry about my health and safety”? <—- Is the part where you goof off and infer that some of his colleagues are merely pointing out his silliness? Ha!

    [That’s deliberately deceptive writing from him. I think what you’re supposed to get from that is that people have been physically threatening him. Which of course, they haven’t been. The poor dahling just means he’s feeling a bit stressed by all this -W]

    For a blogger with a 50% sarcasm content, you are incredibly dense, as evidenced with your callous mocking before realising just who Mr Bengtsson is.

    [Dr B to you. And no, I knew exactly who he was all along -W]

  42. #45 Backslider
    2014/05/15

    “the West Antarctic is slipping into the sea”

    You people are really funny. The West Antarctic glaciers are calving more because of…. more ice! That’s the only “slipping into the ocean”. They most certainly are not melting… well, the ice bergs do eventually, but that’s another story.

    The Antarctic is colder than ever. Ice does not melt at extreme sub zero temperatures (except in warmist minds).

    [The Antarctic is warming; e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica_cooling_controversy you need to stop getting your facts from denialist blogs; and when you make assertions, you need to provide reference -W]

  43. #46 Marlowe Johnson
    2014/05/15

    this has got to be one of the best examples of butt hurt I’ve seen in a long time. god damn i love the internets.

  44. #47 Nick
    2014/05/15

    No doubt the ‘skeptics’ will be asking Bengtsson to document his claim of harassment. Anytime now….

    [To be just-about-fair, there are a few comments at JoNova’s pointing out the lack of evidence (e.g. this. But they aren’t getting much support) -W]

  45. #48 JWnTX
    Frisco
    2014/05/15

    So glad to see serious thought and open minds here. Confirms for me that this climate alarmism is far more about politics than science.

  46. #49 Zeke
    2014/05/15

    Yet more proof (if any further proof were needed) that the “consensus” is a baldfaced and obvious lie, global warming is a scam, and the cultists and exploiters who “defend” the scam are in fact absolutist sophist bigots hugely invested in this garbage doctrine beyond all reason or standards of decency — and, in many cases, are grotesquely mendacious. But the cretins and liars will no doubt continue clinging to this Chicken Little chickensht.

  47. #50 Zeke
    2014/05/15

    Yet more proof (if any further proof were needed) that the “consensus” is a baldfaced and obvious lie, global warming is a scam, and the cultists and exploiters who “defend” the scam are in fact absolutist sophist bigots hugely invested in this garbage doctrine beyond all reason or standards of decency — and, in many cases, are grotesquely mendacious. But the cretins and liars will no doubt continue clinging to this Chicken Little garbage.

  48. #51 Frank
    Sydney, Australia
    2014/05/15

    W, GregH,

    I think you are both speculating about Lennart Bengtsson’s motivations for leaving the GWPF. I am going by the comments made by the man himself.

    [Yes. But its not entirely unknown for people to be biased in their own cause. Sometimes, people have even been known to twist, or at others innocently misremember, events in such a way as to present themselves in a better light -W]

    It’s an interesting story, I am sure there will be some twists before it is done.

  49. #52 Margaret Hardman
    2014/05/15

    Does I was pressured sound more dramatic than my colleagues don’t like me any more? It does. The man has made a monumental idiot of himself by aligning with an organisation that intends to tell him that basic science on which his career depended was wrong. So it is no surprise the resignation letter probably inflated the csuse. Frank, there is literal and naive. I feel,you are in the latter category.

  50. #53 Bulldust
    Oz
    2014/05/15

    No doubt Mr Connolly has a bit of Wiki revision to do adding Dr Bengtsson to the CAGW sceptic blacklist… or did your socks already get to it? Never mind the science… full steam ahead with the character assassination!

    [Its Dr, and “Connolley”. But you folk aren’t very good with facts. CAGW is a denialit strawman, so if its bullshit, that’s your problem – you made it up -W]

  51. #54 Lars Karlsson
    2014/05/15

    As Magnus pointed out, Lennart B has been quite active on a Swedish denialist blog for a couple of years. Sadly, he seems to increasingly have adopted parts of the denialist narrative (not so much the science denial part though). So to be honest, I wasn’t entirely surprised when I heard that he had joined the GWPF – there would be a significant overlap in world views. His talk about “McCarthyism” needs to be seen in that perspective.
    And we don’t know what went on between him and his colleagues, but if he conducted himself anything like he sometimes does on that denialist blog, then I can imagine people might have been quite offended.

  52. #55 EddieValiant
    2014/05/15

    Given the way Connolly misused his administrative privileges at wikipedia,

    [Ooooooh no I didn’t -W]

    it does not surprise me how he treats Lennart Bengtsson in this article. It reminds me indeed a bit about the McCarthyism of the 50’s. Attacking the person, instead of proving your claims.

    [Try re-reading your comment, all of it. Now, can you see the irony? -W]

  53. #56 Steve Milesworthy
    Devon
    2014/05/15

    From http://uppsalainitiativet.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/lennart-bengtsson-om-nipccs-nya.html

    courtesy of Google translate:

    “One can hardly escape the thought that NIPCC is a clear contract work where the requirement is to show that the greenhouse gas increase and especially carbon dioxide increase is harmless with an insignificant effect on the climate. And if it would have any effect so is this mainly positive.

    For serious citizen I can only suggest to ignore this dubious report and wait for the IPCC’s next assessment in 2014. Meantime, the IPCC’s excellent and well-balanced evaluation from 2007 used.

    Lennart Bengtsson”

    [Its all a bit odd. Scientifically, he appears to be sane. Though I haven’t been tracking what he’s saying off in the wilderness. It looks to me to be a confusion on his part – perhaps genuine, perhaps naive, perhaps cunning, I really can’t tell – between the politics and the science. If the GWPF were merely a political organisation with strong views that, say, subsidies to solar power were a waste of money and we should be using a carbon tax instead, then joining its board as a scientific adviser would be unexceptionable. And that’s sort-of how they sell themselves. Of course that’s not what they are. Is it possible that he joined them somewhat casually, without checking them out properly? They have a Lord and ex-chancellor as their front man, it would be easy, from abroad, to assume they’re OK -W]

  54. #57 lord_sidcup
    2014/05/15

    Well, the Daily Fail thinks this is newsworthy, which probably means it isn’t:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2629171/Climate-change-scientist-claims-forced-new-job-McCarthy-style-witch-hunt-academics-world.html

    ‘I received emails from colleagues all over the world telling me it was a “questionable” group.

    ‘But what made me the most upset was when a colleague from the US resigned as co-author of a paper, simply because I was involved.

    There’s your evidence for ‘McCathyism’.

  55. #58 Kevin
    2014/05/15

    > [And there you have the problem: 11 year olds can miss subtleties. You ought to try talking to adults instead. What it is, is a man saying that he has been pressured to leave. But not offering any evidence -W]

    Nor have you offered any evidence for your interpretation!

    [Because I can’t: LB holds all the evidence, and isn’t releasing it. If you’re suggesting that no-one should talk about this without having the evidence, by all means do so, but make sure you’re saying it to everyone, including yourself -W]

  56. #59 Bulldust
    Oz
    2014/05/15

    It’s denialist … and while you’re busy correcting, perhaps you’d extend professional courtesy by referring to the good doctor as Dr. But then courtesy isn’t a strong suit I presume.

    [My rules are that titles, when used, should be correct. But that not using titles at all is fine. If you disagree with that, please be sure to go and accuse von S of discourtesy too. And JoNova. But perhaps you didn’t really mean it – perhaps you’re just indulging ni rhetorical trickery? -W]

    Also dropping usage of the term denier would be a good move in the right direction, but you enjoy the connotation too much I am sure. Talk about Godwin hypocrisy.

    [‘denier’ is an appropriate term. Sometimes – particularly when off visiting the Dork Side – I’ll use ‘”sceptic”‘-in-quotes, but I fear the subtlety is often missed -W]

  57. #60 Steve Milesworthy
    2014/05/15

    Daily Fail says the following.

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

    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’.

    However, the main pressure came from the US, where a government employee refused to be a co-author on a paper because of his links to the controversial group.”

    Which implies that your comments, written after the fact, were instrumental in his decision to leave the GWPF.

    Google couldn’t find who called him a crybaby though.

    [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2629171/Climate-change-scientist-claims-forced-new-job-McCarthy-style-witch-hunt-academics-world.html I presume. That’s impressively garbled – it wasn’t a job, just an advisory panel.

    As for crybaby: you want this -W]

  58. #61 cRR Kampen
    2014/05/15

    JWnTX #48, can you tell me why mathematicians never get attacked for fundamentalism? Cowardice? Or have they bought up all the banks?

  59. #62 Steve Milesworthy
    2014/05/15

    So did anyone publish any comments of any kind about Bengsston joining the GWPF while he was still a member?

    Can we track down any of the hundreds of colleagues who Bengtsson claims (according to the Mail) to have received critical emails from, and ask them what they said?

    “The Swedish climatologist, who has published more than 200 papers, said he received hundreds of emails from colleagues criticising his decision to switch to the organisation.”

    [This is already morphing. If you read what he told the Onion (which I think is the source the Mail has garbled) the “hundreds” is missing, and there’s nothing about “switch” – the Mail is making things up (surprise!).

    There’s another interesting snippet I’ve noticed: his original says other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship – note the plural on “colleagues”. Yet in subsequent statements (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2629171/Climate-change-scientist-claims-forced-new-job-McCarthy-style-witch-hunt-academics-world.html), there’s only one withdrawl from authorship -W]

  60. #63 Don Brooks
    2014/05/15

    Maybe he was hoping for an introduction to Nigella, and it didn’t work out.

  61. #64 cynicus
    2014/05/15

    So Richard Tol is a multi-report IPCC author and GWPF adviser at the same time. How does that square with McCarthy-ism?

    It could be that Tol is less worried about his health, cares less about peer-pressure or isn’t bothered for his connections by his peers?

    [Say what you like about Tol, but he’s robust :-). Indeed, you *can* say what you like *because* he’s robust.

    Joke: “What do you call a man with his fingers in his ears?” Ans: “Anything you like, because…” -W]

  62. #65 C Dartagnan
    Missouri, US
    2014/05/15

    Seems like this particular writer for Scroat is as deluded, most definitely easliy led, as he claims the Professor is. There’s little hope his opinion will ever change unless there is true, open scientific debate on the causes of changes in global climate/weather patterns and not just asinine statements like Gores’ which blatantly attempts to cut off debate before there ever was one. It is not settled science. It is political/ science theater with huge cash awards for the proponents should they actually win out in the public arena. Frankly, in my opinion, the general public has far more common sense than insipid commentators on obscure websites.

  63. #66 Imback
    2014/05/15

    Well I learned from this thread that the Swedish word for denier is apparently förnekar. Awesome if true. Would appreciate confirmation from the resident Swedes. TIA

  64. #67 ligne
    2014/05/15

    “true, open scientific debate on the causes of changes in global climate/weather patterns”.

    yes: the sort that go on in scientific journals, not in newspaper opinion pages courtesy of political lobbyist groups such as the GWPF.

  65. #68 AnOilMan
    Land of Tar And Sand
    2014/05/15

    The fact is that Lennart Bengtsson’s first complaint is that he couldn’t collaborate with other scientists. Apparently that means this is the majority of important people in meteorology.

    This speaks on several levels…
    First is that a lot of scientific work is collaboration with others.
    Second is that not all scientists do collaborate or work with teams.
    Third if you don’t work with others, you are vulnerable to limiting your thinking.
    Fourth its hard to work with others if you say its all bullshit.

  66. #69 GregH
    2014/05/15

    C Dartagnan
    Missouri, US. (“The show me state”)

    “true, open scientific debate on the causes of changes in global climate/weather patterns and not just asinine statements”

    Great idea! Why don’t you go first, Mr. Show Me State?

  67. #70 dave s
    2014/05/15

    This is dreadful, poor Dr. Bengtsson getting such disrespect.

    Certainly there are a lot of rude comments made by people, just look at what the GWPF’s friend Mr. Steyn has been saying. So I must hope and pray that no-one accuses Dr. Bengtsson of fraud, or compares him to Rolf Harris.

  68. #71 Joe Mehma
    2014/05/15

    This was too boring, so I didn’t read it.

  69. #72 Eli Rabett
    http://rabett.blogspot.com
    2014/05/15

    colleague or colleagues

    Obviously a failure in scientific ethics. Where are Carrick and Lucia when you need them?

  70. #73 SwedishChef
    2014/05/15

    Yes, in Sweden we have had some problems with gangs of male emeriti, or soon to be emeriti who hang around on blogs spreading pseudo-science. It reminds a bit of the classical Monthy Python video :-))
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uel1vfAQ52M

    They also write silly letters to newspapers and politicians where they claim things like “hockey stick was a fraud by IPCC” and make fake quotes etc. For example (in Swedish):
    http://uppsalainitiativet.blogspot.se/2014/01/klimatskeptiker-gor-bort-sig.html
    http://uppsalainitiativet.blogspot.se/2014/01/klimatskeptiker-gor-bort-sig-del-ii.html

    And then they become very pissed off when they are not taken seriously :-))

    Probably it is very boring to be retired and they need some more constructive things to do. There was some hope that Bengtsson would be a positive role model when he started to hang around these guys, but in the end he seems to have become more like them, i.e. mixing up politics and science, and got a rude awakening.

  71. #74 Backslider
    2014/05/15

    “The Antarctic is warming; e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica_cooling_controversy you need to stop getting your facts from denialist blogs; and when you make assertions, you need to provide reference -W”

    Oh! Wikipedia. Such a distinguished source of scientific knowledge! Is this one of your Wikipedia articles? Exactly how many WIkipedia articles have YOU edited?

    Please explain to us Mr W, exactly how ice melts at extreme sub zero temperatures.

    You need to get your own facts from empirical evidence, not statistical models (BTW, statistics is not *science*).

    [Yup, sure is a useful source. For example, there’s that nice picture (the one that you looked away in order to avoid seeing, because you don’t like what it says: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Antarctic_Temperature_Trend_1981-2007.jpg Sourced to NASA: https://web.archive.org/web/20070823123915/http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=17838 See? real infomation. In contrast to which, you’ve provided nothing -W]

  72. #75 Tom C
    2014/05/15

    In the end, LB remains an eminent scientist who can think for himself. By what rationale do you, Mashey, Tobis, Eli, et. al. presume to judge his competence and sanity? All the snark in the world can’t hide the yawning gap between his achievements and yours. Which goes part way toward explaining the insecurity displayed in the constant “Dr. Connolley” corrections

    [Credentialism. In which case, the IPCC wins hands down, so you and the denialists can go home and cry into your beer. Or you could even read LB’s own papers and discover a 2 oC lower bound for ECS; you lose, again. And if you had a title, you might be interested in accuracy in such matters -W]

  73. #76 Eli Rabett
    http://rabett.blogspot.com
    2014/05/15

    http://www.earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/2783
    http://www1.lsbu.ac.uk/water/explan2.html#Pmelt

    Lots of ways, pressure melting, friction of moving sheets, ignorance. No wait, ignorance is Backslider’s thing

  74. #77 Mal Adapted
    2014/05/15

    Tom C:

    By what rationale do you, Mashey, Tobis, Eli, et. al. presume to judge his competence and sanity?

    Well, this statement by Dr. Bengtsson certainly calls his competence into question:

    Most of the members of GWPF are economists and leading intellectuals that often have expressed critique towards the present dominant climate policy.

  75. #78 Mal Adapted
    2014/05/15

    Sorry, if there was any doubt, it’s the “leading intellectuals” part of that quote, specifically, that calls his competence into question.

  76. #79 Bulldust
    Oz
    2014/05/15

    By endorsing the term ‘denier’ you have lost all arguments past, present and future through Godwin association. Grats at your masterstroke of inanity. BTW, having a PhD still entitles you to be called Mr – insisting otherwise speaks of insecurity. Perhaps you could see Mr Lewandowsky about that…

    [I have no PhD. I am entitled to be called Dr. That you’re to dumb to realise it tells us about you, not about me -W]

  77. #80 Margaret Hardman
    2014/05/15

    Bulldust, the term denier has been used since the nineteenth century at least in the same manner as it used on climate change deniers. See http://ingeniouspursuits.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/deniers-have-history.html

    The Holocaust came after the coinage of the term, not before.

  78. #81 Backslider
    2014/05/15

    “Lots of ways, pressure melting, friction of moving sheets, ignorance. No wait, ignorance is Backslider’s thing”

    Ha ha Mr Rabbit. Ad hom is the last resort of a fool.

    So, where exactly is the “global warming” melting in all of this? It does not exist, except in warmist minds. Or are you telling us that the all powerful CO2 causes ice sheets to exert more pressure or to move ice sheets??

    The only reason there may be more pressure or movement would only because of?…. yes, MORE ice!

    Where is the ignorance exactly Mr Rabbit?

  79. #82 climatehawk1
    2014/05/15

    Thanks for the good work, Dr. Connolley. Especially enjoyed the incisive responses to comments.

  80. #83 Backslider
    2014/05/15

    “the same manner as it used on climate change deniers”

    Where exactly, Mz Hardwoman, are these people who “deny climate change” I have only ever met them in warmist camps… you know, those who think there is such a thing as “the ideal climate” which supposedly existed before the Industrial Revolution. All of the skeptics I have ever met believe very firmly in climate change, more so that the majority of warmists.

    [You’re denialists, in the sense that all you have in common is denying the correctness of the IPCC view. Nothing else unites the motley bunch; some of you don’t even accept the GHE is real; there’s a whole gamut of mutually incoherent views; the only thing that saves you is that no-one actually cares enough to ask you what you actually believe, as opposed to what you don’t believe -W]

  81. #84 Mal Adapted
    2014/05/15

    Where did all these deniers come from? Has AT1 sicced its claque of middle-school misfits on Stoat?

    [I’ve been tweaking the wackos at JoNova’s place -W]

  82. #85 Margaret Hardman
    2014/05/15

    You know very well what I mean, Mr Backslider. Climate change denier is shorthand for the collection of anti-science beliefs such as CO2 is not a greenhouse gas through climate change is natural, etc. I was responding to Mr Bulldust’s erroneous assumption that the word denier was first applied to those who deny the Holocaust happened. I am not sure what point you are really trying to make but ridicule here certainly makes you look foolish, if I may say so.

  83. #86 Backslider
    2014/05/15

    “Where did all these deniers come from?”

    What? You mean all of those here who do not believe in natural climate variabilty? Those who deny the Roman Warm Period, the Medieval Warm Period and The Little Ice age? The influence of the sun on climate and who believe in a flat earth?

    Yes, where do they come from?

  84. #87 Backslider
    2014/05/15

    “You know very well what I mean, Mr Backslider.”

    See my previous comment.

    [It would be nice if you could avoid repeating yourself; that rapidly becomes dull and leads to moderation -W]

    Who exactly is foolish then?

  85. #88 Margaret Hardman
    2014/05/15

    Not I, Mr Backslder. Not I. I refer you to my previous comment in the forlorn hope that you might read it properly.

  86. #89 Backslider
    2014/05/15

    “It would be nice if you could avoid repeating yourself; that rapidly becomes dull and leads to moderation”

    I have not repeated myself at all. Your threat to silence me highlights the exact same spirit which saw Dr Bengtsson resign.

    That you are unable to provide coherent arguments simply shows that you do not have any. All you people have is ad hom and threats. You are the biggest deniers, because you deny the validy of scientific argument based on empirical evidence, such as no warming for over 17 years despite ever rising CO2 levels. Take a look at the sun perhaps?

    [Apparently, that’s a bad idea: http://www.strudel.org.uk/blog/astro/000347.shtml -W]

  87. #90 Backslider
    2014/05/15

    “I’ve been tweaking the wackos at JoNova’s place”

    Yes, self confessed troll. The whole World can see exactly your ilk Mr W. You have nothing to be proud of. Perhaps you might consider trying to write something intelligent and considered in your life for once?

  88. #91 ligne
    2014/05/15

    “What? You mean all of those here who do not believe in natural climate variabilty? Those who deny the Roman Warm Period, the Medieval Warm Period and The Little Ice age? The influence of the sun on climate and who believe in a flat earth?”

    does anyone here *not*? (anyone not made of straw, that is.)

  89. #92 ligne
    2014/05/15

    “Take a look at the sun perhaps?”

    i wouldn’t do that if i were you — it might give you wrinkles.

  90. #93 Jimmy Senkov
    2014/05/15

    Shame on you.

  91. #94 Eric Dahlgren
    Vegas
    2014/05/15

    No, you don’t win.

    Shutting down science by shouting down those who disagree with you is stupid, short sighted and juvenile.

    And you lose in the long run because you let your stupid, unfounded confidence in bogus models set back real understanding.

    You are, to put it kindly, as ass.

    [Errm, you realise you’re just doing the same “shouting down” that you pretend to condemn? Hypocrite -W]

  92. #95 John Mashey
    http://www.desmogblog.com/user/john-mashey
    2014/05/16

    It is instructive to see the appearance here of a few Pseudoskeptics Exposed In The SalbyStorm.

    So far we have 3 (mostly) anonymous Internet handles, and dedicated readers can examine their discourse by opening the 380-page PDF and using Advanced Search for {name}:
    1) NikFromNYC, as above.

    2) Bulldust (aka MW), who made at least 12 comments and later signed Monckton’s petition to retract TCP paper, to no effect.

    3) Backslider, who was #1 in total comments counted (46), although he may have been edged out by a few others who argued interminably about Salby’s pseudoscience and I got tired of counting.

    ’21{Backslider} #67
    July 15, 2013 at 11:58 am • +1 -0
    Salby is being torn to shreds over at DesmogBlog….. this whole thing is really really ugly.
    Career gone’

    But he got over the anguish:

    ’44{Backslider} #38
    August 13, 2013 at 1:50 am • +7 -0
    My gut feeling on the whole Salby affair is that he was seen as highly dangerous to the warmist meme a long time ago and was lured to Macquarie U, home of such warmist luminaries as Tim Flannery and John Cook to set him up and dispense with him for good.
    One only needs to look at how impossible it was made for him to carry out his ongoing research. That did not stop him however, thus the killer blow had to be swift and sure.’

    Of course, John Cook is at U Queensland in Brisbane, not MQ in Sydney about 90 minutes’ flight away. Salby ran to Australia in early 2008, 3 years before the absurd CO2 ideas appeared, but perhaps someone had a time machine. Even so, a policy of hiring a troublemaker to suppress them is a new one on me.

    That comment was a month after some of Salby’s history was exposed (more to come) and weeks after Readfearn’s expose, when Salby got a long-time and truly eminent associate to go out on a limb for him … that had been chainsawed a week or two earlier.

    While Galileo was invoked often, the commenters also invented imaginative phrases, of which a few (beyond Rosa Parks & Timothy Leary) were:

    cult science of climatology climate church
    Go away and preach to the already converted. We use our brains here. We think for ourselves.
    Scientia weeps
    squealing warmist weasel (No, that was not aimed at WMC)

    The PDF has a 2-page, 4-column catalog and one wonders if Dr. Bengtsson quite understood which side he was joining.

    Again, I offer great thanks to the 400+ dismissive commenters!!
    They volunteered a rich lode of data for discourse analysis and for helping calibrate credibility of new comments for a long time.

  93. #96 thomaswfuller2
    Shanghai
    2014/05/16

    What a lovely and (coincidentally, I’m sure) politically correct update to your post.

  94. #97 Transport by Zeppelin
    australia
    2014/05/16

    Gee, you alarmists are incredibly grotesque in attitude.
    Desperately grotesque even.
    Particularly Connolley.
    I guess the longer we go without warming,
    and observations showing no water vapour feedback,
    no amplification, low sensitivity, the worse you lot will become.

    [Have you considered reading any papers on this subject? http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/33753/ maybe – its by a certain L. Bengtsson, perhaps you’ve heard of him -W]

  95. #98 Backslider
    2014/05/16

    Yes John Mashey. Because you warmists do not have any science to refute what very eminent scientists have to say, you as does Mr Connolley, resort to defaming them. You have no idea what science or the scientific method are.

    Google “Youtube Feynman”. You might learn something. You might even realize then that models (which continually fail) are nowhere near science.

  96. #99 Don Brooks
    2014/05/16

    This is becoming dull.

    Now that we’ve seen the obligatory reference to Feynmann I’m waiting for the contrarian respondents to compare Bengtsson with Galileo and/or Wegener and/or Einstein.

    Plenty of talk about “warmists” but surprisingly only one invocation of “CAGW.” Maybe they’re learning.

    Note to contrarians: You need to come up with some new shtick to keep the act interesting.

  97. #100 Backslider
    2014/05/16

    [I agree with Don; B, you’ve become dull. I’ve moved this to stoat-spam]

  98. #101 Margaret Hardman
    2014/05/16

    From the front page of The Times (London):

    “The problem we now have in the climate community is that some scientists are mixing up their scientific role with that of a climate activist.”

    As if joining a politically motivated think tank isn’t joining activism.

  99. #102 NewYorkJ
    2014/05/16

    Lots of Poe’s Law comments.

    So easy it is to play the victim to stroke the ego and avoid responsibility for anything.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/neal-wooten/megyn-kelly-play-the-victim_b_4474891.html

    Septics have created a great support structure and echo chamber for the fake victims. Victim playing is actively encouraged. Facts don’t matter. Sleazy political parties do it all the time and septics resemble one. The fake victim can even steadily back away from the former charges, to the worst charge being

    “But what made me the most upset was when a colleague from the US resigned as co-author of a paper”

    Gasp! It’s still McCarthyism! Apparently expressing disapproval over a scientist joining an anti-science political advocacy organization is not allowed.

    Victim playing is one way to stifle debate and discussion. With victim playing, septics don’t ever have to defend their claims. Just dismiss all criticism as McCarthyism or the warmista church attacking a genuine Galileo. We saw this recently with the RPJ episode on 538, which resulted in his tribe playing victim to fend off real critiques of his claims. Victim playing is one way to discourage dissent.

    It is indeed becoming dull. The rhetorical games septics play are mainly designed to rally the base and maybe hope to convince a casual passerby. Not sure it’s working for them.

  100. #103 Dale
    2014/05/16

    1. If you hear someone say, “the science is settled!” that person is an ideologue, not a scientist. Science is never “settled”.

    2. The Stalinist tactic of demonizing those who step outside of the accepted groupthink is going to damage every single field of science.

    [The denialists, like the creationists, are finding themselves more and more in need of rejecting solid science, and in order to do that they are finding themselves needing to distort science, and the public’s perception of it, and to demonise scientists. This is going to damage science, at least in the short term -W]

  101. #104 Backslider
    2014/05/16

    “Victim playing is one way to stifle debate and discussion.”

    Lewandowsky all over.

  102. #105 Backslider
    2014/05/16

    [Spammed -W]

  103. #106 Lars Karlsson
    2014/05/16

    Lennart Bengtsson on the front page of The Times:

    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/

  104. #107 dave s
    2014/05/16

    As Margaret Hardman points out, the poor dear is being repressed all over the front page of The Times.

    The quote and the gist of his complaint also appears in The Wail:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2630023/Study-suggesting-global-warming-exaggerated-rejected-publication-respected-journal-helpful-climate-cause-claims-professor.html

    So ERL suppressed his paper which showed low climate sensitivity…. because someone allegedly said ‘It is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of “errors” and worse from the climate sceptics media side’ which dear Lennart claims is unacceptable political interference.

    Or, according to the journal, because “This was peer-reviewed by two independent reviewers, who reported that the paper contained errors and did not provide a significant advancement in the field, and therefore failed to meet the journal’s required acceptance criteria.”

    Perhaps Lennart will get it into Energy & Environment so we can all see?

  105. #108 Transport by Zeppelin
    Australia
    2014/05/16

    Firstly ‘W’, (I’ll take as William) the demeaning way you have referred to Lennart Bengtsson in your article is a disgrace, disrespectful & arrogant.

    [Oh dear, how very sad. Now let me hear you condemn in clear terms the utterly disgraceful treatment of Mann by the likes of McI, AW and so on. If you do that, I won’t consider you a hypocrite -W]

    In regards to climate sensitivity (water vapour feedback), the IPCC states that water vapour feed-back is by far the strongest feedback & the stronger the water vapour feed-back in their models – the stronger the negative lapse rate feed-back.

    RSS temp data for the mid & lower troposphere clearly shows that lapse rate feed-back is not negative as the IPCC models projected, but positive; this along with the data that shows atmospheric water vapour has not increased but decreased confirms that amplification is not occurring in the real world.

    2 x CO2 = 3.7 w/m2 = 1C

    [I’d see you’d rather make up your own science rather than reading actual papers. Your attitude – to LB’s papers – is the one that is truely disrespectful to him as a scientist. Since that’s where his reputation rests, the people who are actually insulting LB are the likes of you, and AW, and the rest of the denialists -W]

  106. #109 Transport by Zeppelin
    2014/05/16

    >>> [Oh dear, how very sad. Now let me hear you condemn in clear terms the utterly disgraceful treatment of Mann by the likes of McI, AW and so on. If you do that, I won’t consider you a hypocrite -W]

    >>[I’d see you’d rather make up your own science rather than reading actual papers. Your attitude – to LB’s papers – is the one that is truely disrespectful to him as a scientist. Since that’s where his reputation rests, the people who are actually insulting LB are the likes of you, and AW, and the rest of the denialists -W]
    <<

    The character of your replies are childish at best!

    It's now 6.45 pm in Australia, & I can take no further part at this time.

    But I will be back to continue the discussion.

    [Its perfectly clear that your condemnation of hounding is entirely one-sided, which is to say hypocritical. Anyone hounding people whose opinions you dislike is doing no wrong; indeed, they aren’t even hounding, because if you dislike people, they deserve all they get -W]

  107. #110 Robin Graham
    London
    2014/05/16

    And yet it moves

  108. #111 And Then There's Physics
    2014/05/16

    I will be back
    I thought Arnold Schwarzenegger lived in California, not Australia.

  109. #112 Frank
    Sydney, Australia
    2014/05/16

    Margaret Hardman,

    suggesting I am “naïve” sounds like an “ad hominem”. In what way am I naïve?

  110. #113 Bulldust
    2014/05/16

    Oh my … atracted the attention of professional smear site DeSmog. I am honoured.

    As for the denier strawman that I assumed it was first associated with the Holocaust, I said nothing of the sort. Strawman, look it up. The fact that it is strobgly assocated with said Holocaust these days is undeniable (yes, I see what I did there).

    ‘Climate Change Denier’ doesn’t even mean anything. Trust me, I don’t expect the climate to remain static forever.

    [You’re being silly. This is a transparent attempt to twist words. You know full well that the use of “denialist” doesn’t mean “believes the climate never changes”, and yet you’re talking as though you do believe that. You’re just throwing up squid ink and trying to derail the conversation; that’s dishonest. Though (if you usually hang out at WUWT and the like) you may not have realised it for yourself yet; there’s an awful lot of deliberate confusion there. “denialist” doesn’t have a precise definition, but I’ve provided a workable one in response to comment #83: You’re denialists, in the sense that all you have in common is denying the correctness of the IPCC view -W]

    The fact that you even use the disingenuous term ‘Climate Change’ to mean whatever you intend it to mean in a given contrext is dumbfounding. If you mean warming then say so. If you mean something else then so otherwise. It is the ‘smurf’ word equivalent of the climate science debate. Pointless and meaningless.

    Besides, you would have to demonstrate I deny anything first, or is simply smearing people the point of this community?

    [As far as I can see, you haven’t really said anything of substance, so you’re closer to a nullity than a denier, as judged by your comments here -W]

  111. #114 Marco
    2014/05/16

    Bulldust, you can start complaining here:
    http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/about/

  112. #115 Marco
    2014/05/16

    If our Australian Zeppelin transporter accepts that doubling of CO2 causes 1 degree of warming, does he then also agree that all those that claim “it’s the sun!”, “it’s cycles! are wrong?

    I mean, there isn’t much room left for those, since we’ve not even reached a doubling, and have already seen 0.7-0.8 degrees increase…

  113. #116 Andrew Dodds
    2014/05/16

    Marco –

    This is septic-think.

    It’s All Cycles,
    And it’s not warming anyway because of UHI
    And sensitivity is only 1K/doubling.
    And it’s the Sun causing the warming.
    And there’s no such thing as ‘global temperature’
    And it’s not warming because the figures are doctored.
    And it’s ENSO causing the warming.

    And it’s all of the above.
    And also none.

    And the ‘C’ in ‘CAGW’ means whatever I want it to mean, no more, no less.

    Hoe this clarifies.

  114. #117 cRR Kampen
    2014/05/16

    Well well, one more typical climate revisionist troll, or is ‘Backslider’ one we already knew?
    (W is not entirely correct somewhere above: the disjunction of all climate revisionists is only metaphorically empty. They do share some characteristics).

  115. #118 Lars Karlsson
    2014/05/16

    Allegedly from a review of Bengtsson’s rejected paper: ‘It is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of “errors” and worse from the climate sceptics media side’

    The lack of context makes it impossible to establish what this means, but it can be interpreted as a request to Bengtsson and coauthors to express themselves with greater precision about something in order to avoid getting their work misrepresented for political purposes.

  116. #119 Steve Milesworthy
    2014/05/16

    LB has collaborated with hundreds of scientists on hundreds of papers, and he has accused many of his co-workers and colleagues of being McCarthyist without being specific.

    Would you rather work with a person associated with a political organisation you disagree with, or with a person who issues vague allegations of McCarthyism about all their past colleagues and gets the allegations published in the national newspapers?

  117. #120 Margaret Hardman
    2014/05/16

    Frank, your naivety is clear. A statement is put out, a letter is written, to establish a position. That was done in this case. Until evidence from the other side is available, it is impossible to tell which is the truth.

  118. #121 Lionel A
    2014/05/16

    Google “Youtube Feynman”. You might learn something.

    As a substitute for reading him, Feynman, I doubt it.

    Now you could start here:

    The Feynman Lectures on Physics, boxed set: The New Millennium Edition

    You might even realize then that models (which continually fail) are nowhere near science.

    Which reveals your total lack of understanding about how models are constructed and for what used. You could start by explaining which models continually fail and why? That way YOU could learn something.

  119. #122 lord_sidcup
    2014/05/16

    @Lars

    IPO have released a statement and the full text of the referees report:

    http://ioppublishing.org/newsDetails/statement-from-iop-publishing-on-story-in-the-times

  120. #123 lord_sidcup
    2014/05/16

    Is ‘so bad it will be harmful’ an unfair interpretation?

  121. #124 Lars Karlsson
    2014/05/16

    Thanks, lord_sidcup,
    This looks very bad … for Bengtsson. The account he gave to the newspapers was very deceptive.

  122. […] wasn’t really going to say much about Lennart Bengtsson and the GWPF. Stoat and HotWhopper have covered it if you want to read more. I have some sympathy with someone who may […]

  123. #126 lord_sidcup
    2014/05/16

    @Lars

    I agree. Ben Webster (Times Journo.) has questions to answer.

  124. #127 Lars Karlsson
    2014/05/16

    It is a sad irony that the reviewer that was concerned that Bengtsson’s et al flawed comparisons could be misused for political purposes had his own review misused by Bengtsson for political purposes.

  125. #128 Lotharsson
    2014/05/16

    At the risk of continuing the flogging of a deceased equine:

    The fact that it is strobgly assocated with said Holocaust these days is undeniable (yes, I see what I did there).

    Bulldust appears to be deploying an invisible modifier as pointed out by Eli. But to be fair, the invisible modifier trick has been around for a number of years.

    The fact that “denial” is also strongly associated with “AIDS denial, vaccine denial, fluoridation denial, tobacco denial, homeopathy denial” and even “climate science denial”, amongst other forms of denial, is also undeniable. Accordingly, if one is going to play the invisible modifier game one needs to present some evidence as to which invisible modifier one thinks the writer meant. That should prove amusing, if it is actually attempted.

  126. #129 Frank
    Sydney, Australia
    2014/05/16

    Margaret Hardman,

    “Frank, your naivety is clear.”….. is that it? Not much of an explanation.

    [I suggest you agree that you disagree on this exciting point. And that others do not care -W]

  127. #130 dave s
    2014/05/16

    Down memory lane: initial statement “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.”
    Reminiscent of a shocked Phil Jones being asked by the Sunday Times if he’d thought of suicide.

    And bang on cue the Times front page claiming Bengtsson’s paper was suppressed, and taking words out of context from the reviewer’s statement. IOP Publishing have been quick to issue a good correction, unlike the publisher of Soon and Baliunas. Where von Storch had to try to pick up the pieces, and resigned when the publisher wouldn’t agree.

    Which circles back to the Onion. Wonder if von S had noticed the similarities and differences?

  128. #131 Marco
    2014/05/16

    Ah, but Dave S, von Storch has already jumped right on this issue, stating how outrageous those comments from the reviewer are. Not how outrageous it is for Bengtsson to claim his paper was rejected for political reasons. So no, von S has not noticed the similarities.

    Not that that should surprise anyone who has paid close attention to von Storch’s blog the last few years.

  129. #132 Quiet Waters
    2014/05/16

    “IPO have released a statement and the full text of the referees report”

    Wow, I’ve had more scathing revise & resubmit reviews.

  130. #133 NewYorkJ
    2014/05/16

    What motivates people like LB is fame. Play victim and you end up Galileo among the echo chamber. That is probably enticing for anyone, and especially for those who no longer have anything useful to contribute.

    The IOP paragraph notes the phrase “unexplainable change of mind of the same group of authors” appears in the submitted study when comparing forcing estimates from Otto et al 2013 and AR5. This is very indicative of the septic mindset. They can’t explain something. Instead of reading the literature carefully, or (gasp) contacting the authors, they imply some sort of wrongdoing or gross incompetence. The reviewers point out the differences. LB could have corrected the submission.

    It certainly validates the importance of peer review.

  131. #134 John Mashey
    2014/05/16

    Although many circumstances are different, the Salby and Bengtsson stories are very similar in their reactions by different groups:

    1) Someone issues a carefully-crafted and self-serving story that appeals to climate dismissives … who gullibly or pseudoskeptically treat it as the whole truth and nothing but the truth… and the playbook then moves into conspiracy and martyrdom. Although some may never have heard of the martyr before, or read his papers, he is extolled as the greatest.

    2) At least one Murdoch-owned paper supports it, in Salby’s case The Australian.

    3) Given a one-sided story, real skeptics actually reserve judgment and look around for more data, as has Eli Rabett, who acted similarly in the Salby affair.

    Behavior patterns tend to persist. While I counted Bulldust as making 12 comments, all @ NOVA, above average, not unusual. One can search the SalbyStorm corpus for {Bulldust} and see how much serious and relevant discourse appeared.

  132. #135 dave s
    2014/05/16

    Thanks for the update, Marco, sorry to hear that von S has jumped to conclusions without first checking about the reported errors in Bengtsson’s paper. The referee’s wording was probably unwise in that it could be taken out of context, but it’s getting to be something when every science communication has to guard against potential quote-mining.

    As John notes, a Murdoch paper has given uncritical support, making the Times appear worse than the Mail and the Torygraph. Rather amusing to see an opinion piece from that well known expert Matt Ridley subheaded “When did demonising your opponents become so acceptable?” Perhaps when the CRU emails were published in 2009, or in 2003 when Senator Inhofe accused climatologists of “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people”?

  133. #136 Hank Roberts
    hankroberts.wordpress.com
    2014/05/16
  134. […] – molti altri dettagli dal rabett e altrove sul povero barone perseguitato perché faceva volontariato per […]

  135. #138 dave s
    2014/05/16

    Actually, the WSJ largely quotes the National Review, with the line that “While Bengtsson maintains he’d always been a skeptic as any scientist ought to be, the foundation and climate-change skeptics proudly announced it as a defection from the scientific consensus.” Oh dear. Did that come as a surprise to him?

    Then quotes the Daily Fail that Bengtsson “was also abused on science blogs” which said that “his actions amounted to ‘silliness.’ Another described him as a ‘crybaby.’ ”
    The horror! What rotter would call him a crybaby? ;-)

    Why oh why can’t those science blogs be like the National Review’s Mark Steyn, and nicely say that “instead of molesting children, [Bengtsson] has molested and tortured data.”

  136. #139 Hans
    2014/05/16

    Just when u think the warmuistas reached rockbottom a piece like this comes up. Connoley was really finished by Delinpole…so low..

  137. #140 dave s
    2014/05/16
  138. #141 Lars Karlsson
    2014/05/16

    Bengtsson makes a statement:

    “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.”

    http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-claims-climate-research-was-suppressed/

    [Thanks for the link. As with the IOP statement, LB’s disagreement with the Times’s front page is unlikely to be seen by those who read the Times, which is unfortunate. As for the second half of his statement, he really needs to start thinking a little more self-critically and wonder about the GWPF, who are exactly the kind of people he is warning about -W]

  139. #142 guthrie
    2014/05/16

    I assume this place has been linked to on one of the denier hangouts, I haven’t seen such an influx of know nothings for ages.

    [Having lots of new folk to read my wise words and join the discussion is good. But it does disturb the regulars, somewhat like a quiet pub with an influx of people for a one-off event. Never mind, things will soon settle down and the cobwebs will be back -W]

  140. #143 John Mashey
    2014/05/16

    Old-timers may recall Eternal September.

  141. #144 John Egan
    West
    2014/05/17

    The way you use the term “emeritus” indicates that you do not hesitate to use ageism to make your point. Perhaps in your next post you might consider some racism or sexism?

    [You’re not emeritus just because you’re old; you have to have lost the plot too. Mind you, Tol isn’t that old. See here for a bit more -W]

  142. #145 Jon
    2014/05/17

    How strange is it that (as far as I can tell) there hasn’t been any public mention of who Bengtsson’s co-authors on the rejected paper were? I can’t help wondering, since the consensus seems to be that his previous published work is competent, how much of the paper was even his work – maybe some of the usual suspects thought they could get through peer review by getting someone respectable to agree to be a co-author without taking more than a cursory look at the analysis. Or maybe they thought they could deliberately submit tripe under his name and then raise the stink currently being raised when it inevitably got rejected. I find in genuinely hard to decide whether the denialati would prefer to have got the paper published or to have their beloved narrative that they’re excluded from the peer-reviewed literature for political reason reinforced.

  143. #146 Tim Beatty
    2014/05/17

    Meh. WMC created his biography in wikipedia touting impressive credentials. Backtracking now sounds kind of sour grapes rather than any substantive criticism of his science.

    [I did indeed create his bio (here). But I don’t understand your assertion of backtracking. He still has those impressive credentials, as I’ve noted. And AFAIK, I haven’t made any comment on his science. I’m criticising his *politics* – you do understand that there’s a difference? I don’t really understand what you’re trying to say at all. You’re suggesting that because I created a wiki article on him in 2006, any criticism now is invalid? That just doesn’t make sense -W]

  144. #147 John Mashey
    2014/05/17

    Jon: hard to tell, somebody ask him if he can get the paper released so all can see.

    However, this seems a bit reminiscent of the Akasofu problem, in the sense of someone who had done good work does something silly, althouhg he went much further.

    Anyway, people can do it all by themselves.

  145. #148 Tom C
    2014/05/17

    Connolley – Why exactly do I “lose” because LB thinks 2 C is a lower limit for sensitivity? I certainly think that is a plausible conclusion. So did the folks at the GWPF. The only persons who “lose” are you and your amen corner here who will accept nothing but alarmism.

    [The denialist movement as a whole certainly won’t accept 2 oC as a lower limit; and you appeared to be associating yourself with them; but I may have been wrong to think that -W]

    Nice to know your new definition of “denialism”: “denying the correctness of the IPCC view”. Lysenko could not have put it better.

    [There’s nothing new about that defn. And I think you’ve failed to read the words carefully. Disagreeing with the IPCC doesn’t make you a denialist; what makes you a denialist is blind unthinking opposition to what the IPCC says, merely because they say it -W]

  146. #149 guthrie
    2014/05/17

    It’s not that they are new that is the problem, it’s that they are the equivalent of a group of 18 year olds going to the pub for the first time, and causing a fight, throwing up and smashing glasses whilst singing loud annoying songs. If they just wanted a discussion it would be fine, but since most seem to be denialist nutters the effect is totally disruptive.

  147. #150 John Mashey
    2014/05/17

    Guthrie:
    It’s been done: Monty Python spam

  148. #151 Hank Roberts
    2014/05/17

    > I haven’t made any comment on his science.
    > I’m criticising his *politics* – you do understand
    > that there’s a difference?

    No, science, although it’s the ocean we who grew up learning it now swim in, is a very new environment on Earth and most people don’t learn it, and still aren’t aware that there is something new here that changes everything we see.

    Science, to most of these folks, is merely politics with a shiny coat of fresh paint.

    David Brin, arguing yet once again that he is not a liberal, he’s a scientist, calls the problem “fused political spine disease”… the inability to turn one’s head and see flaws in all directions.

  149. #152 NewYorkJ
    2014/05/17

    I like the pub analogy. Having the occasional barrage of nuts show up here can be at least mildly entertaining. To have fun with it, run one of their comments through the Snoop translator, and you might find the result marginally more coherent and thoughtful than the original comment!

    http://www.writtenhumor.com/snooptranslator.html

  150. #153 John Mashey
    2014/05/17

    On emeritus professors:
    I know quite a few of them, and trajectories differ, even among very good ones:

    1) Some keep working on the same topics, but without having to be bothered with things they don’t want to do. They may spend more time on related efforts, like being on Museum boards and such. Computer scientists like Ed Feigenbaum and Don Knuth are both Emeritus, and still sharp and active. Bill Ruddiman has done great work since he “retired.”

    2) Some “retire” and shift into other areas and do good work. Burt Richter, “retired”, then got involved in energy/climate issues, wrote a book on that, and led a big energy efficiency study for the APS.
    However, as noted in his book, rather than suddenly pontificating on new areas, he spent a lot of time talking to experts. Admittedly, as he says, having a Nobel tends to open doors.

    3) Professors become Emeritus Professors, and may still be active and sensible … but a relatively tiny fraction “go emeritus,” which is a well-known phrase around academe,as the effects are striking when they occur.

    For example, someone starts making strong claims in fields outside their own, without taking the effort to learn (unlike Burt, or Bill Ruddiman’s studies of agriculture history), and then doing poor work, that falls apart quickly.

    4) As it happens, climate dismissives are extremely fond of “gone emeritus” professors who can be promoted heavily or gotten to sign petitions. In that case, the signer demographic was heavily skewed towards retired physicists, whether formally Emeritus or not.

    This is actually quite sad, as people who have made great contributions end up damaging their reputation.

    For instance, consider Syuin-Ichi Akasofu, a world-class Aurora researcher … who became a Heartland Expert and wrote a very poor paper that caused one editor to quit.

  151. #154 Jimmy Senkov
    2014/05/17

    William Connolley, the largest Troll you’ll find in the Internet (besides me).

  152. #155 afeman
    2014/05/17

    “Yizzle rizzle funny Mizzle , dizzle you gizzle a lot of kizzle pullizzle off spizzle lizzle whizzle you wizzle a kizzle? Whizzle hizzle hizzle is shizzle and you should hizzle your hizzle. But I guizzle thizzle Nizzle stizzle lizzle thizzle bizzle plizzle rizzle up untizzle thizzle Russizzle wizzle on thizzle doorstizzle and you arizzle too stupizzle to apprizzle thizzle could quizzle clizzle turn in to a “J’izzle” momizzle. Nizzle lizzle scizzle intizzle wizzle your sizzle form intizzle is your motto I bizzle and my motto is [incivility suppressed -W]”

    Only slightly more entropic than disemvowelment.

  153. #156 Susan Anderson
    2014/05/17

    “real skeptics actually reserve judgment and look around for more data” is about it. It’s interesting that Bengtson is now being featured by another Murdoch-style outlet, US Fox News, as a “second climategate”. I suspicion he is not innocent, but will reserve judgment myself, in my unskilled way.

    As to emeriti, PW Anderson is 90, and going strong, nothing wrong with his brain, his politics, or his spine. Dr. Connolley gets it exactly right there, im-very-ho.

    And, oddly, I was acquainted with Feynman in the 1980s (just before his death) and he would make very short work of the phonies who cite his work.

    The best remedy for that is to go to the original.

  154. #157 John Mashey
    2014/05/18

    One of the reasons US scientists might not be so happy:GWPF is probably UK’s closest analog to US Heartland, and very well-connected with the machinery that attacks climate science and scientists endlessly and tries to generate doubt.

    Being on GWPF’s advisory council is akin to being a Heartland Expert.
    The two groups share at least:
    Robert Carter
    Freeman Dyson
    Indur Goklany
    Richard Lindzen
    Ross McKitrick
    Ian Plimer
    Nir Shaviv

    And of course, GWPF’s main employee is Benny Peiser.

    Not everyone would recognize Will Happer, but he’s Chairman of the George Marshall Institute (focus of Merchants of Doubt), and one of the organizers of the 2009 petition to the American Physical Society to dump its fairly-vanilla statement on climate change.

  155. #158 Paul Kelly
    2014/05/18

    William,

    You’ve put very well. ” I haven’t made any comment on his science. I’m criticising his *politics* -“. LB’s community did not threaten to ostracize him because of science. No, his community demanded that he toe a particular political line or face isolation. That may or not be a good thing.

  156. #159 Marco
    2014/05/18

    Paul Kelly, words have meanings, and when someone claims Bengtsson’s community threatened to ostracize him, you will need quite a bit more than one single scientist who supposedly nog longer wanted to publish together with him. Because that’s all you have that could be considered a threat to ostracize; the supposedly hundreds of e-mails (a number I have good reason to doubt) are so far evidence of none other than people being concerned about Bengtsson joining an organization that is generally considered to be actively working to undermine the trust in the science.

  157. #160 Paul Kelly
    2014/05/18

    Marco,

    “single scientist who supposedly nog longer wanted to publish together” citation please.

    Here’s what LB wrote: “I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days …. 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. … Colleagues (note the plural) are withdrawing their support, other colleagues (pl) are withdrawing from joint authorship etc. I see no limit and end to what will happen.”

    Do these sound like the words of someone who has received messages merely of “concern:? I’m sure you are quite happy LB was pressured to step down. Why pretend that pressure was anything other than what it was?

    [Th problem is, we have nothing other than LB’s words. In any other contested situation would you really accept as true the words of one side?

    In particular, you say “other colleagues (pl) are withdrawing from joint authorship”, but I’ve already pointed out that in the Times he reduces this to the singular. So his words are slippery, and unlikely to survive close scrutiny. Even over at JoNova’s a few people have pointed out that as proper “skeptics” they need more than a one-sided view. In the one example so far – the reviews of the rejected paper – its turned out that the initial description from the LB-camp has been dishonest -W]

  158. #161 Lars Karlsson
    2014/05/18

    The rejected paper story has now reached Fox News, with some more lies thrown in for good measure. Marc Morano comments.

  159. #162 thomaswfuller2
    Shanghai
    2014/05/18

    Oh, good, back to equating those you disagree with with skinhead punks who insist the Holocaust never occurred. Please feel free to insist that denier has other connotations (We know. We also know that those other connotations are not what you intend.)

    I’ve got an idea–why not insinuate that your opponents are senile by twisting the term Emeritus? Yeah, that’s right! Freeman Dyson no longer has his marbles!

    You might realize that vicious attacks do create victims before pointing out that some people are acting like victims.

    Lord god above you people disgust me.

  160. #163 Marco
    2014/05/18

    Paul, a later comment from that same Bengtsson:
    “‘But what made me the most upset was when a colleague from the US resigned as co-author of a paper, simply because I was involved.”

    Singular.

    William also rightly points out we only have his words, and he’s already had to take one step back on the supposed “my paper was suppressed for political reasons!” evidence. Bengtsson has also gone well over the top before, claiming a logical step after a call for a moratorium on policies that would increase GHG emissions would be to ban incorrect thoughts and books, and even book burnings. A references to the 1930s also followed.

    It would also be nice if you would not assign feelings to me that I do not hold. I could not care less that Bengtsson joined the GWFP, and my first comment here should make it clear I am not “happy” he left. I essentially called him a coward: he made a decision and then starts whining (McCarthyism? Puh-leese!) when he finds out they have consequences that he had not imagined.

    Was it pressure? Any communication with others telling them you think they are wrong, made a poor decision, or whatnot can be taken as “pressure”. Bengtsson joining could be taken as pressure, telling other climate scientists they’re under too much influence of politics, and therefore he decides to join a political thinktankt (which, as he noted, happens to share his preferred policy approach).

  161. #164 Marco
    2014/05/18

    I find it disgusting that Tom Fuller continues to claim the word denier is primarily or solely meant to link it to holocaust denial. There’s a good reason why the word “holocaust” is added in front of “denial”, Tom. I recommend you enter the search term “denialism” in google scholar. Enjoy your temper tantrum realizing those horrible scientists are using denialism so often…and hardly ever for any discussions about the holocaust!

  162. #165 thomaswfuller2
    Shanghai
    2014/05/18

    Andrew Glikson
    “I wonder whether such a show, if concerned with denial of the holocaust of world war II, would have been conceived?” – Andrew Glikson, Australian National University (2012)

    Bernie Sanders
    “It reminds me in some ways of the debate taking place in this country and around the world in the late 1930s – there were people – who said ‘don’t worry! Hitler’s not real! It’ll disappear!” – Bernie Sanders, U.S. Senator from Vermont (2010)

    [And so on; snipped. I remind you of the comment policy: lengthy comments, particularly repetitious ones, are best placed elsewhere and linked to. Blogs are free. If you have original words to say, you may speak at length. For this once, I’ve done it for you but won’t again -W]

  163. #166 thomaswfuller2
    Shanghai
    2014/05/18

    You never learn, Marco.

  164. #167 thomaswfuller2
    Shanghai
    2014/05/18

    [Spammed -W]

  165. #168 bill
    2014/05/18

    check a dictionary, pet

  166. #169 thomaswfuller2
    Shanghai
    2014/05/18

    Pity there isn’t one online you can trust on climate related matters.

    [You’ve joined the Watties mumbling into their beer. You know that wikipedia is online, and you know it can largely be trusted; so much so that neither you nor they dare to even discuss it meaningfully -W]

  167. #170 Lotharsson
    2014/05/18

    (We know. We also know that those other connotations are not what you intend.)

    Speaking for myself, your “knowing” is false.

    When I say denier in this context, I mean denier in this context. If there’s going to be a presumed invisible modifier (h/t Eli) then it’s the invisible modifier appropriate to this context, not with some invisible modifier from another context.

    That’s apparently how just about everyone who doesn’t believe they can read minds thinks that English works.

  168. #171 bill
    2014/05/18

    In a century’s time there’ll be some new tribe of science deniers howling in outrage that they’re being unfairly compared to those terrible climate people.

  169. #172 thomaswfuller2
    Shanghai
    2014/05/18

    Well, you’re right about Wikipedia but I couldn’t resist.

    Surely you must know that you guys are killing your cause, right? I’m not even a skeptic and I think the lot of you are acting like shits.

    [I think you don’t really know what you think; you don’t really have anything to say. But its clear where your sympathies lie, so I doubt anyone is going to care greatly that you dislike “you guys”, whoever that is supposed to label -W]

  170. #173 dave s
    2014/05/18

    Dear Tom, “acting like shits” because Lennart Bengtsson has been described as “silly” or a “crybaby” after joining then very publicly leaving the GWPF?

    Perhaps you’d prefer us to ask if he is simply delusional, or a deliberate liar, or maybe say that he’s in high dudgeon and his bluster brings obvious embarrassment to his fellow scientists.

    Oh, wait a minute, that’s the language the GWPF thinks appropriate when describing a distinguished scientist. And, being the GWPF, spreading misinformation about that scientist. What on earth could have made Bengtsson’s fellow scientists suggest that him promoting the GWPF was a Bad Idea?

    linky: http://www.thegwpf.org/is-michael-mann-delusional-or-a-deliberate-liar/

  171. #174 izen
    2014/05/18

    L’affaire Bengtsson has been a delight to watch, a nice box set of a story arc.
    First the hero is under threat, vilified for his involvement with the sceptics outside the mainstream!
    Second he shows how his work is set aside by the evil, politically activist, reviewers. Such injustice! prevented from revealing the incompatibilities of estimating TCR and ECS by different methods because it might enable the sceptics to claim such differences are errors that invalidate ANY estimate.

    What will be in the third act???

    One of the most relishable meta aspects of the whole drama has been the possibility that the reviewer put in that ‘inappropriate’ comment about –
    “Summarising, the simplistic comparison of ranges from AR4, AR5, and Otto et al, combined with the statement they 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. ”

    -because they were aware of past history.
    Of how apparently simple papers about some aspect of the climate contained statements that could be rendered in the press release as ‘errors’ found in all climate models and measurements of sensitivity’. Was it Bob Carter who was an author on a paper that de-trended the recent temperature record and then declared that 90% of the (remaining) temperature variation in the last century could be ‘explained’ by ENSO.

    Perhaps in writing how the simplistic conclusions of the paper could be misconstrued the reviewer had a premonition, or insight into the intention behind the paper.

    In which case how ironic that his comment alluding to this possibility has itself been cherry-picked out to be used in an attack on the peer review process.

    But there is one aspect I find has elicited much less comment than I expected. I do not think I have EVER seen review comments outed before by someone claiming their paper was rejected for bad reasons. It is a convention surprisingly well followed that reviews are usually private and anonymous. In breaking that taboo, and in such a petty and self-serving way as became apparent when the full review was released, Bengtsson has surely crossed a line far worse than joining GWPF or calling hias colleuges McCarthyites.

  172. #175 Marco
    2014/05/18

    The Daily Fail (David Rose) has added some further fuel to the fire today.

    The close relationship between the GWPF and David Rose are well known, so we see the GWPF unsurprisingly using this episode for all it is worth. Perhaps Bengtsson will at some point in the near future realize how the GWPF is using him as a convenient political tool, whether he was on board or not.

  173. #176 Transport by Zeppelin
    2014/05/18

    >>>>
    Marco
    2014/05/16
    If our Australian Zeppelin transporter accepts that doubling of CO2 causes 1 degree of warming, does he then also agree that all those that claim “it’s the sun!”, “it’s cycles! are wrong?
    >>> I mean, there isn’t much room left for those, since we’ve not even reached a doubling, and have already seen 0.7-0.8 degrees increase…
    <<<

    Marco,

    The IPCC’s best guess figure for temperature response to a doubling of CO2 [was] 3°C .
    (0.82°C per w/m2) (3.7 w/m2 x 0.82°C = 3 °C)

    Assuming atmospheric content of CO2 was 270 ppm prior to it now being 400 ppm, we have an increase in radiative forcing of 2.1 w/m2 (ΔF = 5.35 x 1n 400/270 = 2.1W/m2

    2.1 w/m2 is 57% of a doubling (3.7w/m2).

    Now, 2.1 w/m2 x 0.82°C = 1.72°C, and we’ve only seen 0.7-0.8 °C ???

    And consider, this 2.1 w/m2 increase in radiative forcing does not include the CFC’s, HCFC’s, Halon’s, HFC, Carbon tetrachloride, Sulfur hexafluoride, & Nitrous oxide added to the atmosphere, all with far higher Global Warming Potential than CO2,

    plus,

    the increase of atmospheric methane from 700 ppb pre 1770, to now over 1800 ppb,
    an increase of 160%. (far greater than a doubling.)

    Where’s all the global warming we should have had?

  174. #177 Transport by Zeppelin
    2014/05/18

    The IPCC state – 8.6.2.3 What Explains the Current Spread in Models’ Climate Sensitivity Estimates?

    “In AOGCMs, the water vapour feedback constitutes by far the strongest (positive) feedback, with a multi-model mean and standard deviation for the MMD at PCMDI of 1.80 ± 0.18 W m–2 °C–1

    “Because the water vapour and temperature responses are tightly coupled in the troposphere (see Section 8.6.3.1), models with a larger (negative) lapse rate feedback also have a larger (positive) water vapour feedback.”
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-6-2-3.html

    So; according to IPCC models, the stronger the Negative lapse feedback, the stronger the Positive water vapour feedback.

    What the Observations tell us –

    RSS Temperature Middle Troposphere (TMT) Anomalies – 1979 to Present
    Trend = 0.077 K/decade
    ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/graphics/tmt/plots/rss_ts_channel_tmt_global_land_and_sea_v03_3.png

    RSS Temperature Lower Troposphere (TLT) – 1979 to Present
    Trend = 0.124 K/decade
    ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/graphics/tlt/plots/rss_ts_channel_tlt_global_land_and_sea_v03_3.png

    Lapse rate feedback is not negative, but positive.

    Water vapour feedback is not positive.

  175. #178 Boris
    2014/05/19

    “So; according to IPCC models, the stronger the Negative lapse feedback, the stronger the Positive water vapour feedback.”

    Okay.

    “Lapse rate feedback is not negative, but positive.
    Water vapour feedback is not positive.”

    No–the first statement does not logically imply the second.

  176. #179 Boris
    2014/05/19

    An interesting way to go on this would be to ask Bengtsson and anyone close to serious about the GWPF’s specific statements. They repeat Roy Spencer’s http://www.thegwpf.org/top-ten-good-climate-sceptical-arguments/ approvingly:

    “1) No Recent Warming. If global warming science is so “settled”, why did global warming stop over 15 years ago (in most temperature datasets), contrary to all “consensus” predictions?”

    is a sloppy lie and/or mistake.

    “How did carbon dioxide, necessary for life on Earth and only 4 parts in 10,000 of our atmosphere, get rebranded as some sort of dangerous gas?”

    is misleading pseudo-scientific tripe. (Anybody believes this one should prove it by drinking water with four parts per 10,000 of raw sewage.)

    I wonder what he thinks of these kinds of terrible arguments.

  177. #180 Transport by Zeppelin
    2014/05/19

    >>> Boris
    2014/05/19
    “So; according to IPCC models, the stronger the Negative lapse feedback, the stronger the Positive water vapour feedback.”

    Okay.

    “Lapse rate feedback is not negative, but positive.
    Water vapour feedback is not positive.”

    No–the first statement does not logically imply the second.
    <<<<>> water vapour and temperature responses are tightly coupled in the troposphere <<<< models with a larger (negative) lapse rate feedback also have a larger (positive) water vapour feedback.”
    ==============
    It’s positive water vapour feedback that results in negative lapse rate feedback in the models because Increasing water vapour content in the mid troposphere will cause the rate of warming in that part of the atmosphere to warm at a faster rate than lower down.

    And if the lapse rate feedback is positive, & it is, that is because water vapour content is not increasing & probably decreasing.

  178. #181 Marco
    2014/05/19

    TbZ, you, like certain others I will leave unnamed, ignore the cooling effect of aerosols and compare apples with oranges. 3 degrees is the equilibrium climate sensitivity, something you cannot just use for the current observations.

    Also, did you notice the “b” in ppb? You might want to look at the actual increase in radiative forcing. And please do take those aerosols into account, or otherwise you’re just being dishonest.

  179. #182 Transport by Zeppelin
    2014/05/19

    From Marco
    “And please do take those aerosols into account, or otherwise you’re just being dishonest.”
    <<

    OK!
    Nic Lewis is an expert reviewer

    [“Expert reviewer” is a meaningless status; its used to puff people’s credentials -W]

    of the recently leaked draft of the IPCC's WG1 Scientific Report.

    [Errrm, are you cut-n-pasting old junk? The IPCC report has been *published*. Why are you talking about “leaked drafts”? -W]

    “I consider the most significant – but largely overlooked – revelation to be the substantial reduction since AR4 in estimates of aerosol forcing and uncertainty therein.”

    “Table 8.7 shows that the best estimate for total aerosol RF (RFari+aci) has fallen from −1.2 W/m² to −0.7 W/m² since AR4, largely due to a reduction in RFaci (aerosol-cloud interactions ), the uncertainty band for which has also been hugely reduced.”

    (Doesn't seem convincing Marco, the aerosol forcing excuse any longer.

    [One bloke’s opinion on something obsolete? You’ll need to do rather better than that -W]

    And furthermore, evidence to support an aerosol cooling effect would have had to include a slower rate of warming in the Northern hemisphere than the Southern Hemisphere due to the fact that aerosol emissions have been far far higher in the Northern Hemisphere, and those emissions do not travel to the Southern Hemisphere, as supported here by Nic Lewis. – )

    “Because of its strong asymmetry between the northern and southern hemispheres, in order to estimate aerosol forcing with any accuracy using inverse methods it is essential to use a model that, at a minimum, resolves the two hemispheres separately.”

    Yet, observations show the opposite to be true.
    Instead, the Northern Hemisphere warmed more than the Southern Hemisphere.

    RSS Temperature Lower Troposphere (TLT)
    Northern Hemisphere – 1979 to Present
    Trend = 0.168 K/decade

    Southern Hemisphere – 1979 to Present
    Trend = 0.078 K/decade

    http://data.remss.com/msu/graphics/TLT/plots/RSS_TS_channel_TLT_Northern%20Hemisphere_Land_And_Sea_v03_3.png

    http://data.remss.com/msu/graphics/TLT/plots/RSS_TS_channel_TLT_Southern%20Hemisphere_Land_And_Sea_v03_3.png

  180. #183 Transport by Zeppelin
    2014/05/19

    From Marco
    “3 degrees is the equilibrium climate sensitivity, something you cannot just use for the current observations.”
    <<<

    Yes the thermal lag effect.

    Why Hasn’t Earth Warmed as Much as Expected?
    STEPHEN E. SCHWARTZ
    ROBERT J. CHARLSON
    RALPH A. KAHN
    JOHN A. OGREN
    HENNING RODHE
    “The observed increase in global mean surface temperature (GMST) over the industrial era is less than 40% of that expected from observed increases in long-lived greenhouse gases together with the best-estimate equilibrium climate sensitivity given by the 2007 Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
    Possible reasons for this warming discrepancy are systematically examined here.
    The warming discrepancy is found to be due mainly to some combination of two factors:
    the IPCC best estimate of climate sensitivity being too high and/or
    the greenhouse gas forcing being partially offset by forcing by increased concentrations of atmospheric aerosols;

    the increase in global heat content due too thermal disequilibrium accounts for less than 25% of the discrepancy, and cooling by natural temperature variation can account for only about 15%

    We show that relatively little of this warming discrepancy can be attributed to a countervailing natural cooling over this time period or to thermal lag of the climate system response to forcing.

    We argue that this discrepancy is therefore due mainly to offsetting forcing by increased concentrations of atmospheric aerosols (no, not aerosol cooling, the evidence is in)

    and/or to climate sensitivity being lower than current estimates (tick)

  181. #184 Marco
    2014/05/19

    Transport by Zeppelin, even Nic Lewis didn’t put the aerosol forcing to zero. You did. So you are now contradicting your own preferred “expert reviewer”.

  182. #185 Transport by Zeppelin
    2014/05/19

    [“Expert reviewer” is a meaningless status; its used to puff people’s credentials -W]

    Well Lewis was a reviewer for the IPCC.
    So he must be expert you would think, wouldn’t you?

    http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_AnnexVI_FINAL.pdf
    Expert Reviewers of the IPCC WGI Fifth Assessment Report
    LEWIS, Nicholas UK

    [No. Being an “expert reviewer” does not imply you’re an expert at all -W]

    > [Errrm, are you cut-n-pasting old junk? The IPCC report has been *published*. Why are you talking about “leaked drafts”? -W]

    What I clearly cut n paste was not junk, old or otherwise. It was from an article by Nic Lewis, ‘Expert Reviewer of the latest IPCC report.

    [But you didn’t read it, or you’d have noticed how out of date it was. I really don’t appreciate people just cut-n-pasting stuff here, especially unread; please see the comments policy -W]

    > [One bloke’s opinion on something obsolete? You’ll need to do rather better than that -W]

    Is the latest IPCC report obsolete is it? And it’s laughable to suggest its one bloke’s opinion.

    From the article –
    (IPCC) Table 8.7 shows that the best estimate for total aerosol RF (RFari+aci) has fallen from −1.2 W/m² to −0.7 W/m² since AR4, largely due to a reduction in RF aci,
    It gives a higher figure, −0.9 W/m², for AF ari+aci. However, −0.9 W/m² is not what the observations indicate: it is a composite.
    satellite observations (−0.73 W/m²),
    GCMs (−1.45 W/m² from AR4+AR5 models including secondary processes,
    −1.08 W/m² from CMIP5/ACCMIP models)
    and an “expert” range of −0.68 to −1.52 W/m² from combined inverse estimates.

    http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/figures/WGI_AR5_Fig7-19.jpg

    It cannot be right, when providing an observationally-based estimate of ECS, to let it be influenced by including GCM-derived estimates for aerosol forcing – a key variable for which there is now substantial observational evidence. To find the IPCC’s best observational (satellite-based) estimate for AFari+aci, one turns to Section 7.5.3 of the SOD, where it is given as −0.73 W/m² with a standard deviation of 0.30 W/m².

    [What’s the point? I say this is one bloke’s opinion, and you just quote more of that bloke’s opinion as though it proves it wasn’t one bloke’s opinion. Please, read the stuff you’re posting instead of just spamming us -W]

  183. #186 Transport by Zeppelin
    2014/05/19

    From Marco
    2014/05/19
    Transport by Zeppelin, even Nic Lewis didn’t put the aerosol forcing to zero. You did. So you are now contradicting your own preferred “expert reviewer”.
    <<<

    No Marco, just letting you know that aerosol forcing has been reduced from – 1.2 to – 0.7 w/m2, about half.
    You can't keep blaming aerosols for lack of warming, the missing heat, whatever.

  184. #187 Kevin O'Neill
    2014/05/19

    TbZ: Didn’t you catch the hint?

    [“Expert reviewer” is a meaningless status; its used to puff people’s credentials -W]

    “Well Lewis was a reviewer for the IPCC.
    So he must be expert you would think, wouldn’t you?”

    ****************
    No, it means nothing of the sort. WC has already told you so. At that point you should have at least Googled ‘IPCC expert reviewer’ and tried to see if you were on solid ground. You’re not.

  185. #188 Transport by Zeppelin
    2014/05/19

    [Spammed – you’ve said all this already -W]

  186. #189 Marco
    2014/05/19

    Oh great, now Transport by Zeppeling moves the goalposts to the supposed “lack of warming”. We were discussing your claim of a mere 1 degree of warming as ECS vs the higher ECS mentioned in the IPCC reports.

    [I’ve spammed a couple of TbZ’s comments; to be fair, I’m going to have to start spamming replies to him too… -W]

  187. #190 Transport by Zeppelin
    2014/05/19

    [Spammed -W]

  188. #191 deconvoluter
    2014/05/19

    The authors use the wrong equation to calculate the “committed warming”. In their equation 3, they should use the equilibrium climate sensitivity, not the transient climate sensitivity. This would then yield the climate system’s eventual equilibrium temperature increase (relative to pre‐industrial temperature) for a given forcing, which they take to be present day GHG forcing. Since the transient climate sensitivity is quite a bit lower than the equilibrium climate sensitivity, they have substantially underestimated the committed warming.

    This is from referee 2 whose report has now been released by the IOP.
    It should have been quite easy to demonstrate if the referee was wrong ,especially with the help of the original manuscript. I should have thought that this simple but serious matter needed to be cleared up. But instead the author has apparently submitted the unchanged version to Physics World * which also rejected it. The second rejection can of course be used as further ammunition in the Murdochratic campaign against climate science.
    ———-
    *. Also published by the Institute of Physics.

  189. #192 And Then There's Physics
    2014/05/19

    Maybe you’ll spam this too, but this is something that bugs me about what Nic Lewis says

    It cannot be right, when providing an observationally-based estimate of ECS, to let it be influenced by including GCM-derived estimates for aerosol forcing – a key variable for which there is now substantial observational evidence.

    Nic Lewis has claimed that the aerosol forcing in GCMs is greater (more negative) than the observationally determined value, therefore GCMs are overestimating the climate sensitivity (i.e., they have both a lower net forcing than reality and faster warming than reality).

    There are others who sometimes comment here who know more about this than me (Paul S, Karsten) but I think Nic Lewis is wrong about this. There are, currently, two ways of determining the aerosol forcing – fairly recent observations that are still not regarded as robust, and a subset of GCMs that attempt to determine the aerosol forcing. These are then combined – I think – to provide an overall estimate of the aerosol forcing. Neither is – I believe – currently regarded as more reliable than the other.

    So, it’s not correct to suggest that the models have a larger aerosol forcing than reality because the aerosol forcing is determined by combing both model estimates and observations, and this applies only to a subset of GCMs – i.e., not all GCMs have a higher aerosol forcing than is estimated from observations.

    Anyway, that’s my rant out of the way :-)

    [My impression is that the “observational purists” are just people who don’t know that there are models in everything. There’s no way you’ll get an estimate of aerosol forcing without some kind of model being involved -W]

  190. #193 John Mashey
    2014/05/19

    Maybe the *authors* will be kind enough to post the paper somewhere, which would help settle these arguments.

  191. #194 dave s
    2014/05/19

    From my limited understanding of scientific publishing, if the authors post the paper somewhere they won’t be able to get a journal to publish something as it’s already been published.

    Perhaps if they posted it in one of these open review journals that would work. Rather suspect it wouldn’t work the way they wanted.

    [Maybe a good place to note that the IOP response – http://ioppublishing.org/newsDetails/statement-from-iop-publishing-on-story-in-the-times – has been updated. But you’re probably correct wrt pre-publication -W]

  192. #195 Don Brooks
    2014/05/19

    Most journals will publish something that the authors have posted publicly on a web site or the like. Of course, they won’t (knowingly) publish something that has already appeared in another journal, but informal distribution is not usually a disqualifier. For example, AGU sez “Posting of a preprint of an article via electronic media does not constitute prior publication unless with a service which provides archiving with citation protocols and public retrieval capabilities.”

    The situation can be different for some of the top-tier journals like Science and Nature. They are especially interested in making a big splash so they want stuff that hasn’t been seen before. The author’s guide for Science sez “Distribution on the Internet may be considered prior publication and may compromise the originality of the paper as a submission to Science, although we do allow posting of research papers on not-for-profit preprint servers such as arxiv.org” which is clear as mud.

  193. #196 John Mashey
    2014/05/20

    I suspect Science or Nature are not really relevant here.

  194. #197 Lotharsson
    2014/05/20

    ^ FTW

  195. #198 John Mashey
    2014/05/20

    For some backstory, see Did Lennart Bengtsson Know GWP And Heartland Institute?

    [You lie down with dogs… -W]

  196. #199 Transport by Zeppelin
    2014/05/21

    John Mashey
    Promoting his own article from desmog, here. Now that’s spam.

    Who could take anything he says or writes as anything but idealogical tripe.

    One only has to read the second sentence of his linked article, then check the facts, to come to the conclusion that reading the rest of his article would be an exercise in naivety.

    Mashey states – “GWPF proudly announced that well-published climate scientist Lennart Bengtsson had joined its Academic Advisory Council (AAC), >> finally adding someone with scientific credibilty” <<.

    Mashey, suggesting the following examples have no scientific credibility is telling, especially coming from a computer programmer.

    just a few on the GWPF ACADEMIC ADVISORY COUNCIL

    Professor Henrik Svensmark
    Henrik Svensmark is an astrophysicist and head of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at Denmark’s National Space Institute, DTU.

    Professor Freeman Dyson
    Freeman Dyson FRS, a world-renowned theoretical physicist, is Professor Emeritus at the Institute of Advanced Study in Princeton where he held a chair for many years. He is the author of numerous widely read science books.

    [He has science cred in general, but not for climate; he’s said some pretty odd things about GW and its not at all clear he knows what he is talking about -W]

    Professor Richard Lindzen
    Richard Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology

    [Errm, well, actually, no, he isn’t. Sorry about that. You might expect the GWPF to know who’s advising them, but its probably hard to keep track. Do go on -W]

    at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He is known for his work on the dynamics of the middle atmosphere, atmospheric tides and ozone photochemistry, and has published more than 200 books and scientific papers.

    Professor Paul Reiter
    Paul Reiter is Professor of Medical Entomology at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, France, and widely respected specialist in the epidemiology and control of mosquito-borne diseases.

    Professor Nir Shaviv
    Nir Shaviv is an astrophysicist carrying out research in the fields of astrophysics and climate science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

    Professor Philip Stott
    Philip Stott is Professor Emeritus of Biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, and a former editor of the Journal of Biogeography.

    Professor Ross McKitrick
    Ross McKitrick is a Canadian economist specialising in environmental economics and policy analysis. He is a Professor in the Department of Economics at the University of Guelph, Ontario. With Stephen McIntyre, he was instrumental in exposing the fatal flaws of the so-called Hockey Stick.

    Professor Robert Carter
    Bob Carter is the former head of the Geology Department at James Cook University (Queensland). He is a palaeontologist, stratigrapher, marine geologist and environmental scientist. He is the author of ‘Climate: the Counter Consensus’, published in 2010, and ‘Taxing Air’, published in 2013.

    Dr Indur Goklany
    Indur Goklany is an independent scholar and author and is co-editor of the Electronic Journal of Sustainable Development. He was a member of the US delegation that established the IPCC and helped develop its First Assessment Report. He subsequently served as an IPCC reviewer.

    Professor William Happer
    William Happer is a physicist who has specialised in the study of optics and spectros-copy. He is the Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics at Princeton University.

    Professor Terence Kealey
    Terence Kealey, a medical biochemist, is Vice-Chancellor of the University of Buckingham. His latest book is entitled Sex, Science and Profits.

    Professor Ian Plimer
    Ian Plimer is Professor of Mining Geology at the University of Adelaide. He has published 60 academic papers and six books. His latest book, recently published, is entitled Heaven and Earth – Global Warming: The Missing Science.

    Professor Richard Tol
    Richard Tol is a Research Professor at the Economic and Social Research Institute, Dublin, Ireland, where he is responsible for the research areas energy and environment. He is an editor of the journal Energy Economics.

    Dr David Whitehouse
    David Whitehouse, who has a doctorate in astrophysics, was successively BBC Science Correspondent and Science Editor BBC News Online. He is the author of a number of books on solar system astronomy and the history of astronomy.

  197. #200 Transport by Zeppelin
    2014/05/21

    Professor Richard Lindzen
    Richard Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

    > [Errm, well, actually, no, he isn’t. Sorry about that. You might expect the GWPF to know who’s advising them, but its probably hard to keep track. Do go on -W]

    Got to resort to nitpicking do you William.

    [I don’t think it is. Places like the GWPF are stuffed with emeriti, but they’d rather they weren’t; they’d prefer to have active scientists. So they lie about them, and fool people like you into repeating their lies -W]

    Richard Siegmund Lindzen (born February 8, 1940) is an American atmospheric physicist, who, from >> 1983, until he retired in 2013<<, was Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. <<

    Professor Freeman Dyson
    Freeman Dyson FRS, a world-renowned theoretical physicist, is Professor Emeritus at the Institute of Advanced Study in Princeton where he held a chair for many years. He is the author of numerous widely read science books.

    > [He has science cred in general, but not for climate; W]

    Well Will, that’s just one blokes opinion

    [Its rather a lot of people’s opinion. But I fear I’m forced to point out to you that we’re not on first-name, let alone diminutive, terms; and use of such is impolite. You’ll need to buck up -W]

  198. #201 Kevin O'Neill
    2014/05/22

    TBZ – that really is a Who’s Who of climate scientists.

    OK, maybe it could more accurately be described as a list of people who aren’t actually climate scientists …. but that would be nitpicking.

    BTW – have you skeptically examined McIntyre’s 1000:1 cherry-pick? How did that analysis turn out?

  199. #202 Transport by Zeppelin
    2014/05/22

    Kevin O’Neill said
    >>OK, maybe it could more accurately be described as a list of people who aren’t actually climate scientists <<

    what like William Connelloy & John Mashey

    In any case kevin;
    1. there certainly are climate scientists on that list

    2. Mashey used the exact words – "someone with scientific credibilty”

    3. the IPCC, in their reports use scientists from of many persuasions, as well as geographers, engineers & economists.

    And on the use of the word "nitpicking" kevin, I see your privy to posts I've sent that are still being held in moderation, as this one will be!

    [I don’t know anything about Kevin’s privy; generally nowadays people have indoor toilets. But yes, you’re in the moderation list; are you surprised? -W]

  200. #203 John Mashey
    2014/05/22

    Kevin: minor correction:
    It was only 100:1 cherry pick 10,000:100, I’ve looked at the R code . Of course that was atop a bogus persistence needed to generate the curves to be cherry picked.

  201. #204 Kevin O'Neill
    2014/05/22

    John, yes – I confused the Wegman report’s 10,000:12 with McIntyre’s 10,000:100 …. I’m just cherry-picking any report McIntyre was associated with :)

  202. #205 TbyZ
    2014/05/22

    [Spammed -W]

  203. #206 John Mashey
    2014/05/22

    Kevin: Ahh, yes, easy to do, given same code.

  204. #207 NikFromNYC
    2014/05/22

    “Clued in,” was he?

    I quote his latest interview:

    ” Even more alarming is the tendency of giving people the impression that weather events are becoming more extreme, and that this has actually already occurred. Apart from a possible increase in precipitation and a possible intensification of tropical hurricanes that has not yet been detected, there are no indications of extreme weather in the model simulations, and even less so in current observations.

    This has convincingly been demonstrated and also held up by the IPCC. Damages are increasing, as are damages from earth quakes, but this due to the growing economy. It is also important to stress that injuries suffered by humans during extreme weather has decreased substantially due to better weather forecasts.

    What is perhaps most worrying is the increased tendency of pseudo-science in climate research. This is revealed through the bias in publication records towards only reporting results that support one climate hypothesis, while refraining from publishing results that deviate. Even extremely cold weather, as this year’s winter in north Eastern USA and Canada, is regarded as a consequence of the greenhouse effect.

    Were Karl Popper alive today we would certainly have met with fierce critique of this behavior. It is also demonstrated in journals’ reluctance to address issues contradicting simplified climate assessments, such as the long period during the last 17 years with insignificant or no warming over the oceans, and the increase in sea-ice cover around the Antarctic. My colleagues and I have been met with scant understanding when trying to point out that observations indicate lower climate sensitivity than model calculations indicate. Such behavior may not even be intentional but rather attributed to an effect that my colleague Hans von Storch calls a social construct.

    That I have taken a stand trying to put the climate debate onto new tracks has resulted in rather violent protests. I have not only been labeled a sceptic but even a denier, and faced harsh criticism from colleagues. Even contemplating my connections with GWPF was deemed unheard of and scandalous.”

    http://uppsalainitiativet.blogspot.se/2014/05/guest-post-by-lennart-bengtsson-my-view.html

    [LB isn’t clued in, far from it. His friends, the ones that told him the GWPF are a bunch of wackos, are the ones who are clued in. As yuo’ve convincingly demonstrated above, LB is well off the rails.

    Its worth highlighting how self-serving and self-obsessed his trying to put the climate debate onto new tracks is. What he actually did, was to join a bunch of wackos, leak deliberately partial information, and make inflammatory statements. None of that helped a more constructive debate; there’s no sign at all of LB trying to move towards more constructive debate. What I see is someone who has deliberately politicised science, and then criticised unnamed “others” for doing what he has done himself -W]

  205. #208 Marco
    2014/05/22

    Bengtsson also shows a remarkable unfamiliarity with the literature when he claims “journals’ reluctance to address issues contradicting simplified climate assessments, such as the long period during the last 17 years with insignificant or no warming over the oceans, and the increase in sea-ice cover around the Antarctic.”

  206. #209 Fragmeister
    2014/05/22

    “Were Karl Popper alive today we would certainly have met with fierce critique of this behavior” quoth LB

    I’m not so sure. Late in his career Popper admitted her was wrong about evolution and he knew his answer to the question of what marked science from non-science was flawed. Plenty of things we accept at pseudoscience (astrology, homeopathy, ESP) are falsifiable but are not science. The other aspect, usually ignored by pseudoskeptics and deniers, is that there has to be a scientific explanation too. Anthropogenic climate change has that.

    As a further question, why can so few scientists name more than one philosopher of science?

  207. #210 TbyZ
    2014/05/23

    [Spammed -W]

  208. […] Trubì. Infatti  Hermano Tobia s’ è subito bevuto le bufale su Lennart Bengtsson, l’ultimo chouhou dei […]

  209. #212 deconvoluter
    2014/06/10

    Appropriate terms, in italics below , for describing Lennart Bengston’s (LB’s)comments.

    Example 1,
    I stumbled on this 24 year old quote, which has been recycled by Judith Curry and others and attributed to LB. The date is important although I missed it at first.

    1990.

    If you talk to the greenhouse mafia about these observations, they provide some answers, but those are not real. There is no proper support for the claim that the greenhouse effect should already be visible. It is sometimes stated that the Southern Hemisphere is warming. But there are so few observational sites over there that it is very difficult to draw any definitive conclusions about the temperature in the Southern Hemisphere.

    ‘Mafia’ labels this comment as public relations activism or contrarian advocacy..

    There are no references,

    [If I google that, I find http://www.staatvanhetklimaat.nl/2014/05/13/bengtsson-in-1990-one-cannot-oversell-the-greenhouse-effect/ which claims it to be the translation of an article, the text of which they don’t provide. I don’t think “mafia” is credible for a 30 year old article from LB; I think they’ve made that up. I don’t know how much of the rest they’ve made up -W]

    but there is a 30 year old article in “The Warming Papers” Eds. Archer and Pierrehumbert p.208. Jones P.D. et al, (1986) on global temperatures up to 1984 which discusses some of the same uncertainties; but its conclusions are rather different:

    1986.

    With regards to the hypothesised warming due to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, the overall change is in the right direction and of the correct magnitude.

    Other examples. Fast forward to Sep 12th 2011.

    For these writers is the “hockey stick” shape of the temperature curve for the last 500-1000 years taboo. This shape of the temperature curve, however, is more than reasonable and actually consistent with the current knowledge of the image.

    LB on UI,Google trans.

    18 months later the emphasis has changed, 15/3/13

    Here, in my view, both Mann and Co. as well as their detractors got way too much attention despite the fact that one can not find much substance in their writings.

    LB on SI (1), Google trans. comment 12

    It even tries to promote the idea that global warming has stopped it being emphasized that 1998 was the warmest year on record (“other researchers have documented a decade-long cooling period Following the record heat of 1998″)…….
    …. The last decade is actually more than 0.2 ° C warmer than the previous one, where in 1998 were included.

    From LB,Sep12th,2009 on UI(1) above.

    But starting from the same data,only two and a half months later, he tries to steer his readers in a different direction :

    The last ten years, the temperature has been flat.

    LB 28th.Nov.2009; trans Google;

    Returning to the UI (1) link above LB dismisses the NIPCC with

    For serious citizen I can only suggest to ignore this dubious report and wait for the IPCC’s next assessment in 2014. Meantime, the IPCC’s excellent and well-balanced evaluation from 2007 used.

    Four and half years later this has morphed into:

    The whole concept behind IPCC is basically wrong.

    1st May 2014

    and he appears to have allowed this to be used in a headline.

    References to other comments in Stoat. The paper LB co-authored in 2013 mentioned after #75 and #97 makes some allowance for both aerosols and committed warming, whereas a completely different impression has been given by excluding these effects from the May 3rd.interview with von Storch discussed in #42 of the May 28th. archives.

    It appears that

    Olle Häggström
    was right when he used the

    metaphor of Dr.Jekyll and Mr.Hyde
    ,

    to describe LB. LB’s erratic behaviour towards the IOP’s journals is another example. See also MW’s useful article mentioned at the top.

  210. #213 John Mashey
    2014/06/11

    I’m not sure Jekyll/Hyde is a good model, as that was an oscillation between two extreme states, as a opposed to a transition from one state to another, that seems sudden, but when examined more carefully, is found to have earlier precursors.

    Still, it is a rare case for someone with a long, strong mainstream research track record in climate science to go off like this.

  211. #214 Hank Roberts
    hankroberts.wordpress.com
    2014/06/11

    >erratic

    Science! As Tom Toles reminds us:
    “The brain is a collection of semi-connected potential selves and behaviors (that are in some tension with each other) waiting to be deployed depending on external circumstances. The sense of a Unitary Self, while not non-existent is to a great extent an illusion of the brain’s need to explain its behavior to itself, and others, as more consistent than it actually is….”

  212. #215 deconvoluter
    2014/06/12

    Re: #213

    Yes, perhaps, but that is if you restrict yourself to a rather literal interpretation. If so, don’t forget that one of the potions gradually ran out, sadly, leaving Hyde as the only available state. ,

  213. #216 Mal Adapted
    2014/06/12

    Hank@214: Or as Walt Whitman reminded us:

    Do I contradict myself?
    Very well then I contradict myself,
    (I am large, I contain multitudes.)

The site is currently under maintenance and will be back shortly. New comments have been disabled during this time, please check back soon.