Another Swedish meteorologist bites the dust

First we violated Brendan Eich’s workplace rights. Then we trampled Donald Sterling’s boom-boom rights. And, because we were on a rampage, we took a sparking chainsaw to Condi Rice’s rhetorical rights. And isn’t it fun?

Sure, it is. And all of it’s within keeping of our liberal vows to destroy people we don’t like. Perhaps one day we’ll shred the Constitution, stuff the remains in an L.A. Clipper t-shirt cannon and fire it at the The Gipper’s portrait in the Smithsonian too. Maybe one day we’ll get liberals all over the world to join in on the good times.

Science as McCarthyism
By Rupert Darwall | National Review

…Three weeks ago, Lennart Bengtsson, a leading Swedish meteorologist approaching his 80s, announced that he was joining the avowedly skeptical Global Warming Policy Foundation think tank. In an interview with Speigel Online, Bengtsson spoke of the need for climate-model predictions to be validated against observations. “Since the end of the 20th century, the warming of the Earth has been much weaker than what climate models show,” he said.

And that latest trend in warming is a good place to focus your research – if you’re actually serious about the science. Mind you, the Earth is nowhere near cooling, it’s only warming very quickly since 1998.

But joining the GWPF will get you nowhere on that issue, clearly. It’s a denialist think tank. Their headquarters are located inside The Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining in London, presumably because the backrooms were all taken at the ExxonMobil Embassy Suites.

Here’s the surface temperature graph that greets you at their website, in the banner:

GWPF graph

The hoax of climate change can be exposed, it appears, by examining a mere 12 years of the globe’s surface temperatures. You look a little more expansively at the climate picture and you see:

NOAA global temperature

Something different. This is the view that people working outside the pro-mining think tanks prefer to take in. Framed with data. A few friends of old Lennart reminded him of this, so he resigned from his kewl new job. With this:

“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. . . . 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.”

Poor Lennart. Throw another scalp on the pile.

Evidently the right to practice and discuss climate science should be subject to a faith test. It is an extraordinarily revealing development. Fears about unbelievers’ polluting the discourse, as some academics put it, illustrate the weakness of climate science: The evidence for harmful anthropogenic global warming is not strong enough to stand up for itself.

We’ll take this old guy out, then our shoddy theory will be golden. As is frequently pointed out in these cases, Lennart was always free to do as he pleased. He was not, however, free to go on without criticism. And who is?