Climate Science Defector Forced to Resign in Fear

14 May 2014

Professor Lennart Bengtsson – the leading scientist who three weeks ago signalled his defection to the climate sceptic camp by joining the board of the Global Warming Policy Foundation – has now dramatically been forced to resign from his position.

His views on the weakness of the “consensus” haven’t changed. But as he admits in his resignation letter, he has been so badly bullied by his alarmist former colleagues that he is worried his health and career will suffer.

Bengtsson’s recruitment by the GWPF (the London-based think tank set up by former Chancellor Lord Lawson) represented a huge coup for the climate realist cause. The Swedish climatologist, meteorologist, former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg and winner, in 2006, of the 51st IMO Prize of the World Meteorological Organization for his pioneering work in numerical weather prediction – was by some margin the most distinguished scientist to change sides.

But this, of course, is why he has been singled out for especial vitriol by the climate alarmist establishment – as he describes in his resignation letter.

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.

Responding to the letter, the chairman of the GWPF’s academic advisory council, Professor David Henderson, wrote:

Your letter came as a surprise and a shock. I greatly regret your decision, and I know that my regret will be shared by all my colleagues on the Council.

Your resignation is not only a sad event for us in the Foundation: it is also a matter of profound and much wider concern. The reactions that you speak of, and which have forced you to reconsider the decision to join us, reveal a degree of intolerance, and a rejection of the principle of open scientific inquiry, which are truly shocking. They are evidence of a situation which the Global Warming Policy Foundation was created to remedy.

In your recent published interview with Marcel Crok, you said that ‘if I cannot stand my own opinions, life will become completely unbearable’. All of us on the Council will feel deep sympathy with you in an ordeal which you should never have had to endure.

Mervyn  One thing is clear, these eco-bullies have clearly demonstrated that as and when AGENDA 21 gets implemented, the concept of democracy dies. When eco-bullies create an environment in which people fear to say, do or associate with whoever they please, society needs to stand up and challenge this evil.

Bengtsson must have known what was likely to happen if he made any move which might be interpreted as admitting that the sceptical case has some justification. Look at what has happened to another academic who put his head above the parapet. If this was simply a spat between two academics in the refectory over whether photons exist or not we would not have heard about it. But with trillions of dollars at stake and a million eyes in the audience the matter was never going to be confined to the campus.

[1] Drapela, N: Global Warming Cracked Open: A Peek Inside (Oregon)…

[2] Norgaard, K: Climate change skeptics diseased, need treatment (Oregon)…

[3] Fulks, G: Climate skeptic instructor fired from Oregon State University…

The only people more narrow-minded than liberals are liberal “scientists.”

Al Gore will go down as the biggest Flam Flam Artist in the history of the world.
Nothing of any significance, that he predicted would happen by now, in his book and movie, has come to pass. These pseudo scientist have been caught fudging data to try and back up their ridiculous claims.

Guess who pays for these phony remedies? Middle class people from the Western World.
Guess who gets rich? These pseudo scientists and their backers.
Poverty does more harm to the environment than any other cause see India, Africa, China etc.
And guess which president pushed more people below the poverty level than any other president?
Obama baby!

There have been five known ice ages in the Earth’s history, with the Earth experiencing the Quaternary Ice Age during the present time. Within ice ages, there exist periods of more severe glacial conditions and more temperate referred to as glacial periods and inter glacial periods, respectively. The Earth is currently in an inter glacial period of the Quaternary Ice Age, with the last glacial period of the Quaternary having ended approximately 10,000 years ago with the start of the Holocene epoch. So WARMING and COOLING are a NATURAL CYCLE of the Planet. We are looking at entering another Cooling Period in approx 1500 years. So It cools down, and warms up and cools down and warms up and cools down and warms up…wait I think I see a pattern here!! GLO-BULL Warming: A natural phenomenon and climatic cycle exploited by Anti-Capitalists and Earth worshiping Liberal shakedown artists.

The warmest period was the Eocene epoch that produced the first primates because of elevated oxygen levels. There were forests from pole to pole. Plant life and animal life was thriving. Canada just had a record grain harvest. So much that they had trouble transporting it. The optimum level of CO2 in a greenhouse is 1500 ppm. We are now at 400ppm. Plant would like us to keep pumping the CO2. With more plants the oxygen levels rise. Maybe some really special new species will evolve this time in the elevated oxygen levels. We are still 3 degrees under the last 65 million year average temperature. We started going into an ice age when global warming happened. We were 4 degrees under average, now just 3 degrees under average. So we are just getting back to normal now.

The best evidence I have ever found is the logic they use. Something called the Falsification Theory. They state that since it can not be disproven as false or untrue, that could be true. However, they are also the group of people what would deny God. But using the same logic they present as evidence. As in that science can not disprove that God does not exist, it goes to reason that God could exist.
I love how they prove the existence of God, only to deny it. Yet they are the ones who call us the deniers.

“Bengtsson called into question the very practice of predicting future climate trends, writing “it is practically impossible to make climate forecasts” and “climate calculations are uncertain even if all model equations would be perfect.””

I agree with him completely!! The state of the art cannot predict the weather more than 3-5 days out. They certainly have no expertise to even begin to be predcting the climate. Until you understand and can predict the forces that drive the weather forget about trying to predict the climate.

It’s difficult to admit that you were fooled. The ego is powerful, pretends to be “us” and does not like to admit it is wrong. Then there is Cognitive Dissonance, where even when confronted with the facts your mind will not accept it. This man made global warming boondoggle has been around since the 80s and it came on the heels of the global cooling scare:) This deceived warming generation will probably ride this lie to their grave. All we can do is keep them from screwing up everything in the mean time.

Scientists who deny Climate Change are Denied Grants for their research.

Atheism is not the absence of religion. The void has to be filled by something. Enter Anthropogenic Global Warming. It is the new religion of the Left. Gaia is their Goddess; Al Gore is their High Priest; and they all worship at the Altar of Government and collect taxes (tithing) from the masses to fund their massive global Church.  [Mother Earth is their God and GW Theory is the Bible.]

Your first sentence is wrong. I am an atheist, but I have no “void”, no need for something supernatural and inscrutable to believe in. AGW MIGHT have been something meaningful and important, but for me, all evidence suggests Marxist thinking patterns leading to both problem and proposed solution; and as Marxism is an inherently dishonest philosophy (much as Islam is inherently dishonest), that is sufficient for me to reserve judgment and refuse to jump on the bandwagon.
And the discovery that none, repeat NONE, of the computer models predicting future climate states to date have survived as long as a year of real-world data is sufficient proof for me that AGW is, at best, a completely unproven hypothesis with minimal evidence in its favor.

To be an atheist, as such, requires only that you hold no belief in the existence of a deity (a-theism, meaning without theism, or without a belief in a deity). Not the same as anti-theism (which would be AGAINST belief in deities, or a kind of evangelical atheist; some of these people do exist, granted).

He should try disagreeing with the UK NSPCC or RSPCA; both are people-hating extremist organisations who will end your career should you professionally disagree with them.

“If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work”  Your normal work is already over buddy. Welcome to the blacklist.

Before real science, i.e. scientific method(~1650) there was dogma. When man figured out that if his theroy and data disagreed then his theroy was wrong we made some real progress. Real science had a pretty good run up until the late 20th century. Now we are back to the days of Dogma. Why do so many refuse to beleive the data? They modify, tweek, adjust, etc until the data gives them the answer they want. That is not science! It is a lie.

The 97% figure is based on a total of 77 climatologists who actually responded to the original survey sent out in the 90s. Most media types only care about scare stories to get publicity, so the paucity of respondents to that poll didn’t interest them.

Actually, after the survey you cite was debunked they tried a different approach. They did a review of peer reviewed papers that took a position on climate change and found that 97% were in support of the idea that man is causing it. Here is one of the reports.…
The problem is that there is a bias against those who do not agree which keeps them out of the peer reviewed journals. This was what my analogy is based on.

The murder of the scientific method continues. It is now part of our culture to defend scientific points by saying “the majority of scientists think …” as if one can vote a fact in to being.

Scientific “facts” are now bought and paid for with our tax dollars to manipulate and control us.

Scientific “facts” are now bought and paid for with our tax dollars to manipulate and control us.

Freedom of speech, freedom of thought, difference of opinions, religious views, acceptance of others, tolerance and now even science and scientific inquiry are becoming a thing of the past.

and this is just what we can see in public. grant reviews are done in private but openly discussed between university peers as they desire. submitting grant proposals without towing the de rigueur line will not only end up in your work not getting funded but your reputation being tarnished by the sneering elites deriding you amongst themselves out of the public eye. consensus indeed.

Any time the Warmists flaunt their “97% consensus” in a debate, we should remind the audience that events like this are the reason. Anyone who questions their orthodoxy is persecuted. Is it any wonder that so few dare to disagree?

Science isn’t supposed to work this way. Scientists, however, are human beings with human needs, and are all too susceptible to pressures and threats. It was by such means that the falsehood of Lysenkoism was propagated in the old Soviet Union. How dismaying it is to see this happening in our supposedly free society!

Follow the money. The AGW “scientists” are on the government teat big time. That’s why they foam at the mouth ny time someone questions their “findings.

No surprises here. The left doesn’t have the truth on their side on this issue or virtually any other, abortion, homosexuality, etc., etc. This is the only play they have – harass and marginalize those who dare to speak up. When you don’t have facts to fall back on, it’s the best you can do – at least until you have total control. Then the best you can do is send the folks who won’t keep quiet to the camps to be reeducated (or worse).

Contempt is a fairly accurate description that a majority of people seems to have for that community. They provide no facts or evidence only theories and supposition and demand that everyone bow to their edicts.

That is not science, that is just the oppression of debate and intimidation.

The purpose of Obama’s $70+ billion has been to flood approved journals with IPCC pseudo-science, built on incorrect foundations, a Perpetual Motion Machine of the 2nd Kind.  It is virtually impossible for unfunded professionals to counter such expenditure. In other words, the Scientific Enlightenment is being destroyed; the vicious attacks on Bengtstonn prove it.

Really? What about Bjorn Lomborg (can’t remember the spelling), whose recent successful experiments at CERN strongly suggest that the principle driver of Earth’s climate is the relationship of solar radiation to cosmic radiation?
This explains why Mars can have global warming without ever provably having had multicelluar organisms, much less industry.

Apparently an excess of cosmic radiation tends to support cloud formation, lowering the average temperature, whereas an excess of solar radiation tends to prevent cloud formation, raising the temperature. At least, of Earth it does.

Since 99.9% of the surface heat on Earth comes from the Sun, and that heat combined with the Earth’s rotational motion providing 99.999% of the energy for weather, I have a very hard time believing that the Sun is NOT the primary driver of climate here on Earth.

Just because you can find a bunch of scientists who cater to group-think and political correctness, it does not mean they are right.

Read just below. Bengtsson was deceived himself by this straightforward error. He and Lindzen are waking up to reality, which is that Climate Alchemy is built on foundations of Sand because of Sagan’s basic mistake, 50 years ago or so.  So are the other quality minds in the subject, e.g. Pierrehumbert.

There’s nothing remotely controversial about the current understanding of radiative heat transfer in the atmosphere.

Outgoing longwave radiation is absorbed by greenhouse gases and scattered in all directions, including downwards.

The more greenhouse gases you add to the atmosphere, the longer the LR heat energy stays in the lower atmosphere.

It warms as a result, pushing earth’s radiating temperature higher into the atmosphere.

Unless and until you can rebut that theory, which is strongly supported by observations no matter what you believe, then I’m afraid you’re on a hiding to nothing.

That’s not a “current understanding”. That’s just a recitation of the Credo de Thermophilae et Armis Undulans . As a theory of heat transfer in the atmosphere it has long been scuttled. In the real world all the effects you describe are either undetectably small or swamped by other processes, namely the traditional processes of convection and compression. The “pushing Earth’s radiating temperature higher” was a bizarre Hansen turn of phrase which has misled many people who subscribed to the “radiative theory” (and its imagery of photons being “trapped in molecules” for later release), including the authors of several schoolbooks.

Not at all. We know how much solar energy reaches the surface; so we know what the surface temperature of the earth should be. Fourier worked this out in 1824, for crying out loud!

‘Radiating temperature’ is just that: the temperature at which the incoming and outgoing radiation energy is in balance. It’s the temperature that would be detected at the earth’s surface if there were no greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. It’s 253 deg K; which is -20 deg C.

But because there are greenhouse gases that absorb and re-radiate outgoing LR, earth’s radiating temperature is no longer at the surface; it’s high up in the atmosphere. In fact, it’s literally the top of the atmosphere (TOA).

A clever reply. Let’s take it one point at a time.  1. For equal surface and adjacent atmospheric temperature, standard radiative physics shows there is zero NET ‘outward longwave radiation’ emitted from the Earth’s surface to the atmosphere in self-absorbed GHG bands.

2. Because there is no such longwave radiation, it does not stay longer in the atmosphere.

3. Even if there were such energy to be absorbed by GHGs in excess of the normal proportion of vibrationally-activated molecules for the local temperature, it could not, as an excess energy above Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium be thermalised in the gas phase. It would just scatter to thermalise at heterogeneous interfaces.

Tell me of the observations which you claim proves your points and I will demolish each one. The reason I am confident is that I have measured such data in real life and modelled and built many GHG sensitive heat treatment processes.

1. Standard radiative physics states that a planetary surface *must* emit exactly as much heat energy as it absorbs; otherwise the surface would continuously warm like a slice of bacon under a grill (‘broiler’ for our US friends).

2. There is such LR and it has been observed, measured and quantified.

3. Greenhouse gases do not produce ‘extra’ energy; they recycle existing energy, all of which originates from the sun. Eventually it will all make its way back into space; but the more greenhouse gases there are in the atmosphere the longer the outgoing energy is delayed.

Since the greatest concentration of all gases, including greenhouse gases, is found in the troposphere, this is where we’d expect to see most warming. This has also been observed, measured and quantified.

1. Correct, but the 160 W/m^2 average solar SW thermalised at the surface leaves by convection, evapo-transpiration and net IR. According to the 2009 ‘Energy Budget’ it is 17, 80 and 63 W/m^2 respectively and of the latter, 23 W/m^2 is absorbed in the atmosphere (mainly non self-absorbed H2O bands) and 40 W/m^2 which goes directly to Space in the ‘atmospheric window’, 8 to 14 microns.

There is zero CO2 15 micron band CO2 IR to absorb; none is absorbed. The ‘Energy Budget’ wrongly claims by the ludicrous ‘back radiation’ argument that 396 W/m^2 is emitted as IR energy. This plus the 97 W/m^2 convection and transpiration triples the real surface to atmosphere energy transfer.

2. A pyrgeometer or IR spectrometer facing the Earth’s surface measures its IR irradiance. it does not measure net IR; that is the difference of two readings, one up and one down, radiative physics 101.

3. By assuming incorrectly Kirchhoff’s Law of Radiation at ToA, IPCC Climate Alchemy reduced the tripled real surface energy to c. 60% above reality. The excess energy absorbed in the atmosphere (according to 3x real GHE, another cheat), above latent heat energy in the imaginary ‘hot spot’, is offset in hind-casting by assuming double real low level cloud optical depth, more sophisticated cheating.

At present there is no warming of the troposphere, no hot spot extra latent heat., nor is there any ‘missing heat’ because it didn’t exist in the first place.

1. Some heat energy leaves the surface as convection; but convection doesn’t explain transmission into the upper atmosphere nor into space. Therefore it can’t explain how the planet rids itself of heat from the sun. CO2 dominates absorption bands at two wavelengths in the LR range.

2. There is more than one method for detecting DLR. You might find this site informative:

3. It’s got nothing to do with Kirchhoff’s Law; it’s the simple observation that the sun emits ‘x’ amount of energy and the earth is ‘y’ distance from the sun. Subtract albedo and we’re there.

Clever. However, I have through experience considered all heat transfer modes.

I have explained why DLR is misinterpreted from basic physics. SOD is mistaken; he’s a propagandist.

If you don’t understand the difference between a grey and a semi-transparent atmosphere, you have no right to comment on this subject.

It’s basic atmospheric physics as taught to me and as expressed in every university atmospheric physics curriculum that I know of.  Can you name a single accredited university that does not teach the above?

You were taught incorrect physics dating back to Carl Sagan: it is not standard physics taught in engineering and the hard sciences.

Sorry, but i have taught in a Russel Group University and have met people indoctrinated by IPCC fake fizzicks. Sue to get your money back so you can take a proper Radiative Physics course.

This post was censored some time ago. It was in reply to Ricey who believes the claim at the Heart of Climate Alchemy, that a single S-B equation outputs a real IR flux instead of ‘Irradiance’, the potential flux to a sink at absolute zero, is true. Only the difference of two S-B equations is the real, net flux. Here’s my rep[y:

“Sorry Ricey, but the whole of the Atmospheric Science Well has been poisoned by this basic scientific mistake.

The likes of Bengtsson and Lindzen were taught it and have since been wondering why the theory doesn’t work.

I’m coming along, with every other process engineer and experienced experimental physicist on the Planet and telling you and the rest that you have been deceived by Sagan’s basic mistake.

If you don’t like having your comfort blanket confronted by reality, you shouldn’t have made yourself public in the first place, just sucked away in private.

As a professional it is my duty to rip such items away and leave the likes of you who claim to pretend otherwise, open to real science not fake fizzicks.

PS LW Atmospheric Irradiance has increased but that reduces net surface IR.


  • “Bengtsson thinks that the IPCC has been particularly actuated for political reasons. ‘The IPCC prediction that with a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere the temperature on Earth would rise by two degrees should be taken with a grain of salt.”

    “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.  Plain to see now why their out to get him, how dare he tell the truth.

    I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again: 1) most of the people McCarthy accused actually WERE, at minimum, fellow travelers of Communism or Communists (this was proven by the Venona papers, released in the 90s).

    2) Accusations of “witchhunt” require that the accused be doing something that is suspicious but harmless, or that they weren’t actually doing anything. Being a Communist while working for the US government during the Cold War was not harmless. The existence of Moscow-directed saboteurs and spies in the US government has long since been proven, and this penetration is believed to have begun not long after the US formally recognized the USSR in (I believe) 1929. So, no, this was not a witchhunt. It was a molehunt.

    3) McCarthy, as a Senator, did not have and did not claim the power to arrest anyone, and his investigations did not and could not have resulted in criminal charges. Being a Communist, per se, was not a crime in the 50s (It could make life difficult, but to be a Communist meant that, on some level, you preferred the victory of a country that wanted to destroy yours). His activities were directed at suspected Communists serving in the US government. The penetration of the US government by Communist spies and activists during and before the Cold War has long since been established.

    4) HUAC had nothing to do with McCarthy. HUAC was run out of the House, which does have the constitutional authority to file criminal charges. It also began in the 30s, 20 years before McCarthy was elected.

    5) “McCarthyism” is a smear that was developed by people who wanted the USSR to win the Cold War, and were angry at McCarthy’s barely mildly successful efforts to reverse their ability to sabotage the USA.

    And finally 6) If America had actually taken effective action against Communists in government early on (say in 1933 or earlier), not only would China have never fallen to Mao, but half the countries that did fall to Communism would not have done so. The USSR itself might have failed outright if America had not formally recognized it; and if word of the intentional mass starvation of the Kulaks by Stalin had reached the West (and hadn’t been covered up by Duranty), that recognition would never have happened.

At his blog Climate Audit, in a piece headlined ‘The Cleansing of Lennart Bengtsson’, Steve McIntyre commented:

This is more shameful conduct by the climate “community”. As a general point, it seems to me that, if climate change is as serious a problem as the climate “community” believes, then it will require large measures that need broadly based commitment from all walks of our society. Most “skeptics” are not acolytes of the Koch brothers, but people who have not thus far been convinced that the problem is as serious as represented or that the prescribed policies (wind, solar especially) provide any form of valid insurance against the risk. These are people that the climate “community” should be trying to persuade. Bengtsson’s planned participation in GWPF seemed to me to be the sort of outreach to rational skeptics that ought to be praiseworthy within the climate “community”. Instead, the “community” has extended the fatwa. This is precisely the sort of action and attitude that can only engender and reinforce contempt for the “community” in the broader society.

About these ads

About arnash

“When you find yourself on the side of the majority, it’s time to pause and reflect.” - Mark Twain - Politicians and diapers - change 'em often, for the same reason. "Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other." Ronald Reagan "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley, Jr. “The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell The people are the masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it. Abraham Lincoln “Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.” - George Orwell “Satan will use a lake of truth to hide a pint of poison”.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: