Prof. Claes Johnson’s blogsite here reports on how an IPCC Vice Chair recently used his UN position to suppress scientific dissent and discourse. Hat-tip: Hans Labohm.Johnson, professor of applied mathematics at the Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, had been asked by the Société Européenne des Ingénieurs et Industriels (European Society of Engineers and Industrialists) to participate (along with Fred Singer) in discussions on climate science in Brussels Sept 1-2.
Spooked, an IPCC higher-up intervened and cancelled the discussion – obviously too much scientific dissent over a science that can no longer take it.
Johnson got the following letter from the SEII dated August 20 signaling a coming invitation:
SEII (Société Européenne des Ingénieurs et Industriels, Prof Henri Masson) organizes a conference for Fred Singer and Claes Johnson at the Fondation Universitaire in Brussels on September 1, at 18.00 h. Official invitation from SEII follows by E-mail.
The next day 2 September there will be a workshop with some of our Think Tank. Our preliminary programme looks as follows:
– 18.15 S. Fred Singer: What is new in climate change?
– 19.00 Claes Johnson: Blackbody radiation and Climate Thermodynamics
– 19.45 to 20.30: Questions and Answers”
But for Johnson, the invitation never came. Instead a letter (written in French) was sent August 22 by IPCC Vice Chair Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, who is also a member of the Belgium Royal Academy, was sent to the Fondation Universitaire.
The effect of the letter: The SEII/Fondation Universitaire seminar was cancelled.
Yes, that cancellation of open scientific debate was brought about by a “forceful intervention” by IPCC vice president Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, who wrote in his letter to the Fondation Universitaire:
[…] You should know that Fred Singer is a person who leaves very little to be desired when it comes to scientific honesty. His activities of disinformation are financed by the fossil fuel lobbies (see XXXXXXXXXXXXXX), and it is scandalous that such a person could be remotely or closely associated with the SEII and to the Fondation Universitaire.
Some eiminent colleagues have also written me that M. Johnson is no better. One of his recent textbooks, where he spoke up against climate change, published by the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH, Sweden), should have been retracted because it contained errors.
I thank you in advance if you’ll rapidly inform me of the measures the SEII intends to take in order to distance itself from this ‘event’? […]
Cordially, Prof. Jean-Pascal van Ypersele
There you have it – a Vice Chair of the IPCC reacting to scientific dissent like Superman reacts to kryptonite. They haven’t learned that science is all about taking a hypothesis and putting it on the test-stand of rigorous scrutiny. Not that this has never been done in climate science – indeed it has been done many times. Therein lies the problem! The AGW hypothesis holds up about as well has a sugar cube left out in a hurricane. The only dissent that the IPCC accepts is dissent that agrees with their science.
“…these people will go to any length to suppress scientific dissent”
Here’s S. Fred Singer’s reaction, who got news of the suppression soon after:
– Why am I not surprised by this disreputable action of this IPCC officer? After all, we know from Climategate emails that these people will go to any length to suppress scientific dissent. Even to libel and to use bald-faced lies.
– Of course, I am not supported by fossil-fuel industry. That is complete nonsense and invention.
– My Europe visit is paid by the Ettore Majorana Foundation — to give an invited talk at a climate conference in Erice. I am using the occasion to accept additional invitations to speak (without lecture fees) at the Univ of Hamburg, Imperial College, Univ of Paris – Jussieu, and of course at the KNMI in De Bilt. By happenstance I was also invited to address 100+ engineers in Zurich.
– Our IPCC colleague van Yp also questions my honesty. Well now — the IPCC has been using me as a scientific reviewer, I publish regularly in peer-reviewed journals and am an elected Fellow of several scientific societies. So there must be some who disagree with van Yp.”
The more the IPCC suppresses and tries to shut down dissent and debate, the more suspicious other scientists will get. Hardly a good way to build trust and respect.
UPDATE 1: Also read Russell Cook’s piece here.
=====================================
PS: You can contact the SEII and asked them why they refuse to have professors Singer and Johnson.
Tel.: Fondation Universitaire: 32 (0)2 545 04 00 (ask for SEII)
Fax: 32 (0)2 502 98 31
Email: info@seii.org or seii@tiscali.be
We often do not know what’s going on in editorial boards, unless a whistle blower informs us, as in the BBC case. I wrote you about the excellent article in my newspaper last saturday. The science part has an own editorial board but the writer of that article was not the chief editor. The latter installed a few years ago an AGW censorship. Last monday the chief published his article about a totally uninteresting subject, which he could introduce with the words ‘in warming greenhouse world …’. So he got his part. It’s left to us to guess what’s going on there. Let’s keep an eye on censors in influential positions.
What a private newspaper does is one thing. But when public-funded institutions start censoring leading scientists, then you know things are getting dangerous.
PS: I tried contacting the SEII, but got no reply.
Right Pierre. Private companies like a newspaper, are accountable to their shareholders, owners and clients. Government bodies like the IPCC are accountable to the taxpayers, they should be questioned and pressured on scientific censorship.
I posted the following comment on Claes’s site, under his post on IPCC censorship, which I expect few on either “side” of the larger debate will want to hear:
On the political side, I call it the “War of the Insane Left”. Its underlying motivation appears to be a neurotic Malthusian, and Darwinian (!), fear of imminent scarcity of resources necessary for survival, coupled with a lack of faith in either men, or God, or the world itself to provide what is needed. And criticism or public confrontation of their view only confirms their fears in their own minds, and justifies them taking total control of everything they can, in order to dictate, to an “unthinking” populace, what they believe is needed to survive. Underlying all this is the unquestioned belief, of both Right and Left, in Darwin’s “survival of the fittest”, otherwise known as the “fight for survival”. It is an essentially unthinking, animal way of life, not a human one. Now, on the scientific side, science has become simply incompetent in its own belief, in the same unquestionable and hotly defended dogma, of undirected evolution of, not just life on Earth, but of the Earth itself, and all the universe beyond. The essential meaninglessness of undirected evolution, as the ruling paradigm in science, is failing (through my epochal research, it has already failed, and the door already opened to a new paradigm). Europe, in particular, has been toying insipidly with meaninglessness, in the form of existentialism, since well before the self-fulfilling prophecies of World War I and II seemed to nail the coffin shut on any real happiness for man in the world, in the weak minds of those who put their faith in meaninglessness as the modern “truth”. In reality, the only imminent scarcity is that of places for modern man to hide from the truth, that his many divisive dogmas, both inside and outside of science, are not just intellectually false, they are now unable to deal with the reality of the situation in the world. In climate science, for example, the ubiquity of homeostasis, or Le Chatelier’s principle, or simple resistance to any applied force (Hooke’s Law, Lenz’s Law, V = I R, etc.), has been uprooted and turned on its head, into a natural conspiracy of “runaway” climate. It is insane, or incompetent, take your pick.
Thanks for this Pierre. Here is the email I just sent to the SEII – I dont’ expect any reply of course, but it helps to let these people know that they are out of order and anti-science:
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am disappointed to see that you appear to be suppressing scientific discussion by cancelling the SEII/Fondation Universitaire seminar due to have taken place in Brussels on 1-2 September 2011.
Can you explain why you are taking this action?
May I remind you that the CO2 theory behind supposed man-made global warming is just that – a theory. It has never been proven scientifically to this day. Also, new data released by the prestigious scientific institution at CERN has shown that solar/cosmic rays causes clouds to form, and this quite possibly plays a large part in warming and cooling cycles that we have observed.
By cancelling this seminar, you are supressing scientific debate and make yourselves appear to be anti-science. In doing so, you bring disrepute to your organisation.
I await your reply and thank you for your attention.
Excellent…I fully endorse that.
Let us know if they send you a reply. In fact the SEII is welcome to send a reply which I’ll gladly post.
Thanks Pierre, if they ever send a reply I will gladly send it to you.
Now then, what is the probability of them sending me a reply? I’d bet it’s less than the probability of man’s CO2 contribution causing any significant warming.
I can’t wait for September 14th when old Al Gore stands on his soapbox and makes a complete fool of himself. His ‘Climate Reality Day’ will be the best entertainment I’ve seen in a long time, and it should fun to see him make a clown of himself:
http://climaterealityproject.org/?manbearpig/hide-the-decline-and-steal-the-money-and-blackmail-the-skeptics.html
But wait, there’s more: van Ypersele was commissioned by Greenpeace to write a paper after he had already been working for the IPCC. Please see my piece on that here:
“Climate Science and Corruption” http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/08/climate_science_and_corruption.html
Excerpt: “Could anyone dare imagine a more breathtaking example of hypocrisy? An IPCC Lead Author commissioned to write a paper for an enviro-activist group while claiming no influence from them is now a top ranking IPCC leader repeating an old unproven accusation insinuating that mere association with fossil fuel industry funding renders skeptic scientists completely untrustworthy, and he demands such skeptics should be silenced.”
Thanks – great piece. Van Ypersele is a true Greenpeace hack.
Protect the climate by liquefying your dead. Glasgow based company presents the Resomator.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14114555
The IPCC and scientific integrity are polar opposites.
All should realize that the IPCC was never set up to be a proper scientific inquiry entity. It was set up with the mission to show the effects of global warming. That’s their missions and none other. Not warming and global cooling are impossible for them to handle.
The IPCC is the propaganda producer and the UNFCCC was set up to push the propaganda worldwide.
“The truth! You can’t handle the truth!” – Jessup, A Few Good Men
[…] then there is IPCC Vice Chair van Ypersele shutting down open scientific inquiry, per No Trick Zone, which also points out that Globull warming is now causing the sea levels….to […]
[…] then there is IPCC Vice Chair van Ypersele shutting down open scientific inquiry, per No Trick Zone, which also points out that Globull warming is now causing the sea levels….to […]
Real scientists don’t fear debate.
But why did the Société Européenne des Ingénieurs et Industriels cave in?
“One of his recent textbooks, where he spoke up against climate change…..should have been retracted because it contained errors.”
Well, by that logic we should retract every IPCC report ever made.