Ex-Director of Top Global Warming Center Compares Warmunism to McCarthyism

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.


bengtsson_welcome

It’s a consensus and if you deviate from it in any way, you will be terrorized until you back off. Because that’s science… and why do you hate science?

The debate over climate change is often a contentious one, and key players in the discussion only rarely switch sides. But late last month, Lennart Bengtsson, the former director of the Hamburg-based Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, one of the world’s leading climate research centers, announced he would join the academic advisory council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF).

GWPF, based in Britain, is a non-profit organization and self-described think tank. Conservative politician Nigel Lawson founded the organization in 2009 in order to counteract what he considered to be an exaggerated concern about global warming. The organization uses aggressive information campaigns to pursue its goals.

But that didn’t last long because everyone expects the Warmunist Inquisition.

In an e-mail to GWPF, Lennart Bengtsson gas declared his resignation of the advisory hoard of GWPF. His letter reads :

“I have  been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days  from all over the world that  has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore  than resigning from GWPF. I had not expecting such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life.  Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc.  I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy.  I would never have expecting anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.

This isn’t much of a win. Instead events like these show that the consensus that Warmunists like Al Gore keep hyping is nothing more than a combination of special interest bribery, ideological conformity and political terror.

  • Warren Raymond

    Trouble is, McCarthy was right….

  • American1969

    And yet history has proven McCarthy was right.

  • The March Hare

    “I would never have expecting anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.”
    I would really have to question the judgment of an individual that works within an organization for that many years and doesn’t notice who they actually are. As a director, he surely knew they were fabricating the whole scenario for political purposes. He obviously switched due to pangs of conscience and he is surprised? Like he didn’t know how they treated all who did not believe them.

  • Mysterio! BOOGAH BOOGAH

    Wasn’t it McCarthy who found out the financial people behind the commies were wall street tycoons and that’s when they set him up?

    He found out through his many interrogations that the US and RUSSIA were in cahoots all along and the cold war was BS to provide the ever believing fluoridated sheeple with FEAR and WONDER

    • liz

      Got a source for that? It sounds interesting.

    • NiCuCo

      And take our precious bodily fluids.

  • glpage

    The folks who pressured Bengtsson to leave the GWPF are not true scientists. They are ideologues. They are acting like the Catholic Church during their persecution of people like Galileo. Science is open to change, it has to be open to change because what is commonly believed often can be proven to be wrong, such as the earth being the center of the universe.

    Bengtsson said of the climate change proponents, “It is frustrating that climate science is not able to validate their simulations correctly.” This has been shown various times, such as the hockey stick model and the East Anglia emails in which various people complained reality did not match the models and fudging archival data because it didn’t fit the model. And yet the climate change proponents persecute him for their failures. As I said, they are not scientists.

    • edlancey

      If only. The Catholic Church asked Galileo to offer proof or shut up. We could do with some of that now for the Climate-Mullahs.

      • Ralph Snyder

        Galileo offered proof. The Church could not understand it because it contravened the assumptions of theology. Similarly now the denialists will not understand climatology because it contradicts what they know to be obviously true.

        • edlancey

          Nonsense.

          AGW is Lysenkoism for the 1968 and MTV generations.

    • Ralph Snyder

      This Galileo thing is getting really tiresome. Denialists are not like Galileo and the mainstream of climatology is not like the Catholic Church. It is rather the other way around. The denialists refuse to accept the most basic principles of climatology because they know that they are right however much evidence the climatologists present.

      Or, as some wag put it, “They laughed at Christopher Columbus. They laughed at the Wright brothers. They also laughed at Bozo the Clown.”

      • Daniel Greenfield

        The other way around?

        You mean the people who are persecuted for speaking out by Big Green and its Wall Street allies are really the powerful establishment and the multi-billion dollar Green tycoons are Galileo?

        • Ralph Snyder

          Big Green’s Wall Street allies? Are you kidding me?

          No, I don’t mean to say that the denialists are the really powerful ones. The Galileo story is not about power; it is about evidence. The denialists are the ones without evidence.

          • Daniel Greenfield
          • glpage

            Actually the climate change folks are those without evidence. Their models of climate are way off, somewhere in the range of 2 or 3 hundred percent; that is significantly wrong. They have been caught fudging data, they have conspired to keep anyone whose research contradict theirs publish. The fact that they are harassing someone who has just asked them to explain why their models are so far off is indicative of people who know their research is on shaky ground. True scientists do not attempt to suppress those whose research may disagree with theirs. Those who cannot tolerate a challenge to their “research” are ideologues, much like the Catholic church of days past. Without the challenges science will not advance.

          • Ralph Snyder

            Bengtsson disagrees with you:

            “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.”

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

            “… models of climate are way off, somewhere in the range of 2 or 3 hundred percent” doesn’t make any sense. Would you care to explain what you mean and perhaps provide some evidence? There is always room for improvement in the models, but they have performed quite well enough to show that as a matter of policy, we should be quite concerned. It had nothing whatever to do with questioning the models.

            In any case, evidence of global warming is not based on models. It is based on data collected by satellites and in situ.

            The basic point of Bengtsson’s paper is that climate sensitivity may be at the low end of the accepted range and that more study is needed. It was not rejected because it contradicted the “party line.” It was rejected because it offered nothing new. Hardly an example of suppression.

            There is no suppression on the part of the science. The suppression comes from the denialists, who dismiss evidence because it contradicts what they already “know” to be true, who file frivolous lawsuits against legitimate scientists, who send e-mail death threats to researchers whose findings they dislike, who use Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt to delay useful policy responses to the clear and present danger of climate change.

  • edlancey

    George Clooney won’t even need to dye his hair to play Pr. Bengtsson in his forthcoming satire on the McCarthyist, Salem-esque. Ah forget it.

  • Andy_Lewis

    Ex-scientist gets paid. Big whoop.

  • Hugh Janus

    Warum means why. What’s he talking about? Why do liberals have the inability to say anything factual.

    • catherineinpvb

      You may have been reading ‘too hard’. . .try ‘warmunism’. . .looks like; feels. ..sounds like; the ‘real thing’. Think it a great ‘play on the truth’ of the matter.

  • liz

    We’ve reached the bottom of the barrel when even scientists can be bought off or intimidated into silence.

  • Bo_Sears

    Strange that FrontPage should embrace Joe McCarthy as an ultimate symbol of hate…that image was carefully crafted by the Extreme Left and using it is no credit to FrontPage. If a Swedish meatball does it, no surprise. For FrontPage to use this label in its headline is alarming.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      it’s a quote

      • Bo_Sears

        It’s in the headline and in a quote. But I can think of a dozen quotes with hate words like that one that, even if they were relevant and meaningful, I wouldn’t dream of mass producing…just out of respect for the dead and the defamed.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          McCarthy, fir the record, did more damage to anti-Communism than the left did. He hijacked it and destroyed it for his own self-promotion.

          Communists in the US were on the ropes and had been hit by effective targeted legislation.

          • catherineinpvb

            The Left killed the messenger, nonetheless. As they always do; when their truth is threatened. McCarthy was not ‘all’ self-promotion and he was right. And you are right. Perhaps the beginning of ‘anti-communism’ as politically-incorrect.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            The left looks for weaknesses and mistakes, just like it does today when some idiot starts talking about how rape isn’t really rape. That was McCarthy in a nutshell.

            He was an idiot and a Nazi sympathizer who hijacked the work of the real Anti-Communist crusaders and gave the left an opening to destroy it.

            McCarthy wasn’t the messenger. The messengers were people like Whittaker Chambers and Victor Kravchenko who really put something on the line.

            ”For the Right to tie itself in any way to Senator McCarthy is suicide,” Chambers said. ”He is a raven of disaster.”

            The rest was history.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            The left looks for weaknesses and mistakes, just like it does today when someone in the GOP says something that plays into their hands. That was McCarthy in a nutshell.

            McCarthy hijacked the work of the real Anti-Communist crusaders and gave the left an opening to destroy it.

            McCarthy wasn’t the messenger. The messengers were people like Whittaker Chambers and Victor Kravchenko who really put something on the line.

            ”For the Right to tie itself in any way to Senator McCarthy is suicide,” Chambers said. ”He is a raven of disaster.”

            The rest was history.

          • catherineinpvb

            You are right. . .and ‘indeed’ per the history. A history that cannot be changed; or rather, could be; at least; if Repubs would stick to the facts that McCarthy was ‘right’; no matter, how badly.

          • Daniel Greenfield

            It would be more useful to go back to a time when Democrats were on board with the Anti-Comm consensus and why that took place.

  • billyd1953

    These denialists still think Al Gore and the liberals invented global warming. Do they realize the science behind it goes back nearly 200 years to the 1820s when Fourier discovered that gases in the atmosphere retain heat from the sun and thus keep our planet from turning into a frigid, icy rock in space? And over 100 years ago it was calculated and published that if coal burning continued it would eventually release enough CO2 to cause global warming. Denialism isn’t so much an opinion or an ideology as it is a personality disorder, characterized by paranoid, delusional thinking. It is remarkably similar to the delusional thoughts of patients suffering from schizophrenia. In schizophrenia the patients often have delusions that they are the personal targets of the CIA or the FBI. With denialists they think there is a liberal conspiracy out to deceive the world about a supposedly imaginary global catastrophe. Medication is often very helpful in schizophrenia and I recommend the same for denialists. I think with proper counseling and medication they would come to realize that their most deeply held principles are simply a manifestation of a serious mental illness.

    • Sussex Girl

      Um, you are aware that NASA has been monkeying with the data for years, specifically by lowering the temperature records for the 1930s to make today’s temperatures look higher on graphs; and you are aware that temperature stations around the country have had to be relocated because they were poorly sited, like next to parking lots; and you are aware that European glaciers have been receding since the 1800s because that was when the planet finally began warming after the Little Ice Age; and you are aware that the Medieval Warm Period, when the Vikings grew wheat in Greenland, was warmer than it is today; and you are aware that twice now emails have been leaked that document a clear and disturbing pattern of collusion by the warming camp to suppress information and keep papers by skeptics out of technical journals; that Kevin Trenbreth of the NCAR actually admitted “We can’t account for the lack of warming, and it’s a travesty that we can’t,” right?

      Global temperatures have not warmed in 17 years, since 1998 (during a visit to Australia to deliver a lecture at Deakin University in February 2013, the UN’s climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, acknowledged the 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed by Britain’s Met Office, but said it would need to last “30 to 40 years at least” to break the long-term global warming trend), yet CO2 has continued on its upward trajectory.

      Many scientists (US, Russian, Danish, and more) are watching the Sun and are calling for a Maunder Minimum, which was stinking cold. For 400 years, starting with Galileo, astronomers have watched the sunspots as they form and disappear on the Sun’s surface. During the coldest periods (the Maunder Minimum 1640-1680, the Dalton Minimum 1790-1830, a smaller minimum from 1880-1915, and a very little one from 1945-1977), there were few to no sunspots.

      We are in Sunspot Cycle 24. Originally, during Cycle 23, observers thought Cycle 24 was going to mimic Cycle 4, which occurred during the Dalton Minimum. However, three years ago, the National Solar Observatory published three separate reports stating that the sunspots are going to hit a low and may disappear altogether. 400 years of observation reveal a clear pattern: fewer sunspots, colder temperatures; more sunspots, warmer temperatures.

      We could get into a whole discussion of the AMO (Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation and the PDO (the Pacific Decadal Oscillation) and how they affect temperature, but enough is enough. CO2 does not drive temperature (some indications are that temperature drives CO2 levels with an 800 year lapse). After several years of very changeable weather, the planet is going to slide into a very cold period. One Russian paper calls for a Maunder-type minimum (as does Don Easterbrook, professor emeritus of geology at Western Washington University and expert on the glaciers in the Cascades, especially Mt. Baker) starting in 2020 and lasting until at least 2040. Better get your long johns ready.

      • billyd1953

        My apologies. I was probably overly optimistic to think that counseling and medication would be of any help in treating this disorder. It is most certainly incurable and quite possibly untreatable. Well, we all have our issues. For example, I’m afraid to fly, but fortunately the future well-being of the world doesn’t depend on my personal neurosis or fear of flying.

      • Ralph Snyder

        You are aware that what you call “monkeying with the data” is in fact figuring out how to account and correct for various difficulties in the data such as poor siting and instrument drift, and that such adjustments are normal scientific practice? Much like anyone does when we know that our speedometer reads 5 mph too fast or our watch runs 5 minutes too slow.

        You are aware that the reason that the Little Ice Age ended and the cause of modern global warming need not have much to do with each other? That a trend continues does not mean that the reason for the trend is constant.

        You are aware that the Medieval Warm Period was warm in the North Atlantic and Western Europe, but global temperatures were lower than today? You are also aware that while Greenland was just able to support European style agriculture on its western coast, the Anasazi and Mound Builder civilizations in North America were so utterly destroyed that archeologists are hard pressed to reconstruct them?

        You are aware that you have misquoted Trenbreth?

        You are aware that due to the noisiness of the data that nothing can be said about the trend of the last 17 years, especially as you have conveniently chosen the beginning of your period as a anomalously warm year?

        You are aware that even a grand solar minimum would depress global temperatures by less than what global warming has already elevated them? A little ice age, must less a real ice age, is simply not going to happen.

        We could get into a whole discussion of ENSO, AMO and the rest. Bottom line, without AGW due to CO2 forcing, we would now be experiencing significant global cooling.

        • Daniel Greenfield

          It is normal scientific practice and it is normal scientific practice to question whether it was done to achieve certain results.

      • Icarus62

        Your Gish Gallop of myths, lies and diversions can’t hide the fact that you don’t have a single scrap of valid evidence to contradict the accepted science of AGW.

        • catherineinpvb

          And the info that speaks to the myths; the lies; the ‘Agenda’ of Global Warming, keeps on coming – fast, furious, unafraid – and all but ignored by what are the ‘real’ deniers of Truth. Here is another, posted on Drudge Report this morning. Another truth flag. . .

          http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/science/article4091344.ece

          It IS amazing to behold; this commitment to a ‘false narrative’ that serves a literal ‘power base’, given the fraud, thus far exposed. (The Left, clearly, understands far better – and has more experience – with the ‘Power of the Lie’; than do those more Conservative. )

          The lies, exposed in the e-mails (per GW ‘Science’ Community) a few years back, would have been enough to embarrass into silence, those pushing what is a ‘discredited’ agenda; had they been anything, that is, but committed Leftist ideologues.

          • Icarus62

            You really don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.

          • catherineinpvb

            And in your world- ‘saying it’ – makes it so. . .

    • Daniel Greenfield

      … much like phrenology.

      We’re relying on the ‘science’ of people who thought their greenhouse was a valid metaphor for a planet.

      (It’s not)

    • edlancey

      billyd1953

      15 years old in 1968 – a terribly impressionable age to be spoonfed Hippy BS.

      Then 40 years of smoking weed and still expecting to be taken seriously.

    • catherineinpvb

      Cultural Marxism is a beautiful thing, no? As is the singularly, totalitarian (and always narcissistic) mind; whereby all the world; is experienced as a ‘selfie’. . .All to say. . .billyd1953, your ‘me-in-the-mirror’, denialist. . . mental illness. . . critique; is no more than just that. Albeit; no question, that if you realized it; you would not hold to same prescriptions for dealing with it.

      (Which brings us back to the ‘thing in itself’; that you suffer from.) And too, the threat that you people pose to the rest of us earth dwellers, because of it. We, who realize that Everything Changes; except the failings of human nature, that you and our History-as-Horror books, give witness to.

  • Ralph Snyder

    The facts are hard to discern as this story is only being reported in the denialist press, but the gist seems to be:

    “‘Lennart Bengtsson, the former director of the Hamburg-based Max Planck
    Institute for Meteorology, one of the world’s leading climate research
    centers, announced he would join the academic advisory council of the
    Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF),’ an anti-science lobbying group founded by ‘Conservative politician Nigel Lawson … in 2009 in
    order to counteract what he considered to be an exaggerated concern
    about global warming.’

    “Consequently Bengtsson received e-mails from colleagues world-wide, and particularly from the United States, advising him that this move would undercut his credibility. Particularly painful were announcements from previous co-authors that they would no longer be interested in further collaborations because of the doubts that such works would labor under from its association with GWPF.”

    I am sorry that Dr. Bengtsson is suffering, but frankly he should have known better. Associating himself with GWPF is not unlike associating himself with the Flat Earth Society.