But joining the GWPF is akin to a terrorism expert joining the Sinn Fein. One cannot join such a highly politicized organization with such a terrible reputation when it comes to spreading climate nonsense and pretend to be and remain unbiased.
The very fact that he had not foreseen the reaction from within his own scientific community shows just how out of touch with reality Mr Bengtsson is. That too could be due to his age.
Concerning reactions from other scientists, I'm not surprised.
"He's old, just let him be."
There's no reason to let loose with vitriol on someone who's been good for 80 years.
So, for me, (5) wins.
Let's remember the good times and overlook the harder times.
That's how good people deal with the world around them.
Edit: Interesting. I said, 'just be nice to the guy'. And got 3 thumbs down.
Is being nice a bad thing?
Do people read, or just thumb people they like or don't like?
Bengsston has done some good work in meteorology, but I had never heard of him before the deniers started quoting him--I don't think he is particularly famous. Why do we have to say that his ideas come from being old? I know an oceanographer (much more famous than Bengsston) who is still doing science at 96, but who fully believes in AGW. Should we ascribe his views to being old also?
Don't worry so much about the opinions of any one scientist--in reality there is a whole spectrum of viewpoints--and he still believes in AGW and he still thinks something needs to be done--like almost all climate scientists.
People who know him probably have an opinion and might care, but I doubt that most climate scientists care or have spent one minute thinking about it. Really, what difference does it make? It has no effect on the science. Individuals do all kinds of things for all kinds of reasons – and in the long-run it does not matter because the truth is that science is bigger than all of them and is independent of them.
As great as Galileo, Newton, Darwin, and Einstein were, if none of them had ever lived, science would still be were it is because there have always been other scientists doing the same thing at the same time. Oxygen, calculus, and evolution all were discovered or invented independently by different people working on the same problems at the same time. The fact that some scientists are more recognized than others is a function of historical circumstance, timing, and because that is way people like to look at history.
Newton’s apple is as fictitious as Washington’s cherry tree; every 19th-century naturalist knew evolution was a fact even before there was a theory; and everyone one in the world (excluding the Deniers of the period) knew that the earth was round long before Columbus didn’t find India. That is the way it has always been and that is the way it will always be.
=====
edit –
I agree that it makes a practical difference – but. I don’t think it matters because Stupid does not need help – it is the default condition and can only be subdued for short periods with extraordinary effort. Deniers are a small subgroup of the approximately 50% of people who are incapable of thought and having ideas – which dooms them to life-long intellectual ambiguity – which means they will never lift a finger to change the way things are. The only thing that separates Deniers from normal people is that they deal with their insecurity about being stupid by lying about it, denying it, and pretending that they know everything about everything – they know all about science even though they reject all biological science and all physical evidence about the age of the universe – they are climate experts who think that “climate changes” is an explanation of how and why climate changes and who believe one guy saved the entire animal and plant kingdoms from a global flood by spending 125 years building a wooden boat with one door.
There is no example in all of human history of a society doing anything until it faces the loss of everything. The belief that there is some innate human drive to explore and learn is the biggest piece of self-deluding Bullshlt – ever. The global colonial period of Western Europe was the direct result of their exhausting their energy and industrial resources and trashing their environments. Their use of wood for energy and construction had left them with no forests. The combination of land clearing and air pollution led to the destruction of their water and coastal areas which killed the fish. So, with no forest food or energy resources, worthless fields, and polluted water, their only option was to look elsewhere. The New World was a continent saver – and it wasn’t about gold and silver – it was about lumber and food.
Another great myth is that America became a dominating world power because Americans were more special than everyone else. The reality is that North America was a mansion waiting be occupied. America was born with a seemingly endless supply of mineral and natural resources, including agriculturally rich soils and zones. Although the resources are far greater in quantity and quality than those of historic Europe, our use-behavior is exactly the same.
I would think real scientists are more busy with their work than having time to think about such petty things. It's big in the denier blogs, not in reality
Something odd is going on. Can you explain it?
1. Anti-science poster Ottawa Mike loves this guy AND
2. Climate scientist Pegminer also thinks highly of him
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20140514073058AAjSzDu
https://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20130514082840AAUuREP
3. If you google him, you find page after page after page of links almost EXCLUSIVELY to denier blogs. NOTHING from scientists. ALMOST NOTHING from any reputable news outlet or ANYTHING else BUT denier blogs.
4. NO credible climate scientist I can find seems to have ANY thing to say about Bengtsson's flirtations with denial of climate science and recent, not very credible claims of McCarthyism. (As if McCarthy was reticent about speaking in public!)
http://www.desmogblog.com/global-warming-policy-foundation
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/meteorologist-lennart-bengtsson-joins-climate-skeptic-think-tank-a-968856.html
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/14/shameless-climate-mccarthyism-on-full-display-scientist-forced-to-resign/
5. There is a hypothesis that occurs to me, and that seems consistent with all these observations.
The guy is almost 80. He quite evidently did some solid science years ago, and still gets respect from scientists for this, but some people start to lose it mentally when they hit their late 70s (or sooner if there is a specific medical issue involved).
