The global warming clergy deal with another heretic

The global warming clergy will never give up their faith. They have grown insanely wealthy and powerful on the back of bamboozling the hoi polloi and have no intention of letting go the riches that have flowed in their direction since this scam began. So if you are one of those with an open mind about the minimal likelihood of a carbon planetary death over the next century, then the assault on Professor Lennart Bengtsson will just seem par for the course. And while James Delingpole thinks this may be “a bridge too far” for the AGW brigade, it is really nothing more than a small skirmish in The Great Climate War that was settled long ago. So while it’s a big story today and even made it to the front page of The Times, you are kidding yourself if you think it will make the slightest difference. Other than the billions it will cost us in wealth, since it is billions we do not have and will never earn, money we will never receive cannot be used in a campaign of our own to turn this particular tide. The only thing we have on our side are the facts. So it goes. But the Bengtsson moment is nevertheless a moment worthy of our consideration.

Bengtsson is a scientist who has moved from having accepted the global warming hypothesis to a more sceptical approach, last month joining the board of Nigel Lawson’s Global Warming Policy Foundation. This is the story of the reaction from his fellow “scientists”.

The leading Swedish climatologist and former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, astonished the academic world with his decision to join the advisory council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), founded by renowned climate change critic Lord Lawson.

Explaining his decision earlier this month, Professor Bengtsson said he wanted to learn from the highly qualified experts at the GWPF in areas outside of his own expertise and to help widen the debate through his own extensive meteorological knowledge.

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

But in his resignation letter to the London-based GWPF today, the 79-year-old said the enormous pressure he had felt from around the world to his appointment on the organisation’s Academic Advisory Council had become “virtually unbearable”.

Prof Bengtsson added: “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 [been] 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.”

The Professor’s letter concluded: “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.”

As someone commented, this ‘has the potential to do as much harm to climate science as did the Climategate emails’. Exactly my point. It will do no harm at all.

The highest quality climate science

At least they met but why the secrecy. This is by Nigel Lawson in the latest edition of The Spectator:

The long-discussed meeting between a group of climate scientists and Fellows of the Royal Society on the one side, and me and some colleagues from my think-tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation on the other, has now at last taken place. It was held behind closed doors in a committee room at the House of Lords, the secrecy — no press present — at the insistence of the Royal Society Fellows, an insistence I find puzzling given the clear public interest in the issue of climate change in general and climate change policy in particular.

The origins go back almost a year, to a lecture by the president of the Royal Society, the biologist Sir Paul Nurse. In it he chose to launch a gratuitous personal attack on me, making a number of palpably false allegations. I wrote to him, pointing out his errors, and he replied — somewhat changing his tune — conceding that ‘it is quite legitimate for both of us to talk about climate change policy, but before doing so we need to have access to the highest quality climate science. I am not sure you are receiving the best advice, and I would be very happy to put you in contact with distinguished active climate research scientists if you think that would be useful.’

So now the highest quality climate science has been provided but we don’t know what it was or how Nigel Lawson replied. All I do know is that Lawson has not changed his mind. But again, why the secrecy?