egafd.com

As we all (hopefully) know it is perfectly permissible to hold different opinions on a variety of subjects and apart from the occasional bit of name calling, this tends to be accepted by all on here.

Three weeks ago Professor Lennart Bengtsson, a believer in manmade climate change, changed his mind and joined the board of The Global Warming Policy Foundation. Since then he has been attacked by people he regarded as friends, so much so that he fears for his health and safety.

Yet another example of the intolerance of the followers of this new "religion" to the views of others.

He writes to its chairman, Professor David Henderson.

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

And the reply:
Dear Professor Bengtsson,

I have just seen your letter to me, resigning from the position which you had accepted just three weeks ago, as a member of the Global Warming Policy Foundation?s Academic Advisory Council.

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.

With great regret, and all good wishes for the future.

David Henderson, Chairman, GWPF?s Academic Advisory Council

Sadly intolerance is everywhere (have you seen some of the posts in this forum lately?). In this particular case it seems this bloke was seen as a turncoat, traitor etc. Some people have strong opinions but would people really harm this 'switcher'?

1. How many times have you heard of scientists ganging up on and threatening physical harm on another scientist?

2. Why are these private letters being published?

3. How did you come by them?

I've no doubt some former friends of his would have been angry and disappointed which this professor's change of mind. Over 90% of people studying in this field believe that the largest contributor to global warming is CO2 emissions by man. If you went to 10 different doctors about a mole and 9 of them told you it was cancerous with just one telling you it's nothing to worry about, who'd you believe?

The fact these letters have been published in the way they have, and the big deal being made that a single professor out of thousands around the world has 'switched' tells me all I need to know.

As I've said before.......when it comes to most laymen, they'll believe in science when it suits them and they're seeing the benefits. As soon as science tells them something they don't like, they doubt it and it's a load of slapheads talking bollocks.

How do you know it is one scientist? It is one who has gone public recently. For all you know there might be hundreds of them who are sceptical about the nonsense that climate change is manmade.

A question I asked you a while ago that I don't recall you answering:
Aids
Mad cow disease
Millennium bug
Bird flu
Swine flu
Salmonella in eggs
Britain going broke unless we joined the euro
etc etc

Each and every time the so-called experts were wrong. What makes you think they are right this time?

Essex Lad wrote:

> A question I asked you a while ago that I don't recall you
> answering:
> Aids
> Mad cow disease
> Millennium bug
> Bird flu
> Swine flu
> Salmonella in eggs
> Britain going broke unless we joined the euro
> etc etc

I think that's comparing apples with orange-flavoured chocolate. There is a huge difference between scientific predictions and economic ones. Infectious diseases have to be treated with care - if nipped in the butt early on they may just be a storm in a tea cup, but once spread they can kill millions. WWI killed fewer people than the flu epidemic that followed it.

> Each and every time the so-called experts were wrong. What
> makes you think they are right this time?

First of all, they are different experts. I'd rather believe a physicist than an epidemiologist, rather an epidemiologist than a nutritionist, and rather a nutritionist than an economist. The millennium bug was more a journalist hype than an expert prediction of gloom - I don't recall anyone in the Computer Science community paying the slightest bit of attention to it at the time.

More generally - that sort of questioning is like saying: expertise is a figment of our imagination, experts talk bollocks all of a time. Go and join the Amish then!

Ultimately, you are saying - I don't want to be told by the experts how to live my life. If there's a chance that it won't ruin the future of humankind I'm willing to take that chance. That's fair enough - but don't pretend to take the moral high-ground.

beutelwolf wrote:

> Essex Lad wrote:
>
> > A question I asked you a while ago that I don't recall you
> > answering:
> > Aids
> > Mad cow disease
> > Millennium bug
> > Bird flu
> > Swine flu
> > Salmonella in eggs
> > Britain going broke unless we joined the euro
> > etc etc
>
> I think that's comparing apples with orange-flavoured
> chocolate. There is a huge difference between scientific
> predictions



and economic ones. Infectious diseases have to be
> treated with care - if nipped in the butt early on they may
> just be a storm in a tea cup, but once spread they can kill
> millions. WWI killed fewer people than the flu epidemic that
> followed it.

Aids was a scientific prediction as were mad cow disease, bird flu, swine flu and salmonella in eggs ? all wrong. How much did the government spend in stockpiling tamiflu ? and now admit it doesn't work and would never have worked.

>
> > Each and every time the so-called experts were wrong. What
> > makes you think they are right this time?
>
> First of all, they are different experts. I'd rather believe a
> physicist than an epidemiologist, rather an epidemiologist than
> a nutritionist, and rather a nutritionist than an economist.


> The millennium bug was more a journalist hype than an expert
> prediction of gloom - I don't recall anyone in the Computer
> Science community paying the slightest bit of attention to it
> at the time.
Really? I suggest that you check your facts. Governments the world over predicted virtual armageddon and several people ? computer experts ? became very rich using their skills to prevent a problem that was never there in the first place.

From the BBC website:
Little in the computer world has caused more speculation in recent months than the so-called "millennium bug".

This is the name given to the problem caused by hardware and software which use only the last two digits of the year rather than all four. Essential computer systems could be vulnerable when they tick over from "99" to "00" - making some of them interpret the year as 1900.

Estimates of the damage that could be caused range from global meltdown to minor irritation. Some people have gone as far as to take measures to prepare themselves for the collapse of civilisation. You can express your opinion on our Y2K Talking Point.

BBC News Online has collected facts and figures both from around the globe and on essential parts of the UK infrastructure.

If you are wondering what all the fuss is about, or want to know what is being done about it, take a tour of the world via our clickable map. For a detailed look at how the millennium bug might find its way into the homes of UK residents, follow the link to Bugtown UK.

The UK Government's Foreign and Commonwealth Office has collected information about the state of preparedness of many countries.



>
> More generally - that sort of questioning is like saying:
> expertise is a figment of our imagination, experts talk
> bollocks all of a time. Go and join the Amish then!
Quite often they do... smoking calms the nerves and is good for you ? most doctors in the 50s; homosexuality is a mental problem ? American Psychiatric Society in the 50s and 60s; Al Gore in An Inconvenient Truth ? riddled with inaccuracies.

>
> Ultimately, you are saying - I don't want to be told by the
> experts how to live my life. If there's a chance that it won't
> ruin the future of humankind I'm willing to take that chance.
So you are willing to pay thousands in "green" taxes and penalties for something that despite what some say is not a settled issue? Even though the experts on whom you rely have been shown to cheat and lie and make up their data. There has been NO increase in temperatures this century... It's a political issue not a scientific one. How many of the climate change brigade would hold the same views if their grants were not dependent on them?

> That's fair enough - but don't pretend to take the moral
> high-ground.
Where am I taking the moral high ground?

The effects of man-made climate change (they don't call it "global warming" any more) may or may not have been exaggerated but one thing's for sure, some people are making a killing from it ("carbon trading" etc.).

MTM, you don't half talk a lot of sense...

Essex Lad wrote:


> Aids was a scientific prediction as were mad cow disease, bird
> flu, swine flu and salmonella in eggs ? all wrong. How much did
> the government spend in stockpiling tamiflu ? and now admit it
> doesn't work and would never have worked.

Yep, I recall hearing on the radio that the *best* case scenario for the UK for one of the flus was 70,000 dead.

Diverting from my questions and points.

90% of climatologists believe the major cause of global warming is carbon emissions from man. If 9 out of 10 doctors told you you had a cancerous tumour that needed treating to prevent you from dying, and one doctor told you it was fine, how would you proceed?

I don't remember you question re mad cow disease and aids, but I do remember you doing a little experiment with pop bottles and CO2. Did you get round to it?

The millenium bug was media hype. No one involved in tech or even had basic experience with coding took it seriously. 'We're going to be fine' doesn't sell papers.

Diseases are much more harder to predict. There are too many variables due to population movement and how a virus will affect each individual. We have solid data on carbon emissions and temperature rises and can see how they're correlated.

Seems you just want to hand on to a few estimates that didn't work out as predicted and ignore the vast amount of things science got right, just so you can go about your days ignorant to your own contribution to it all.