Destroying the careers of those who defy the diktat

A chilling effect on dissent

Destroying the careers of those who defy the diktat

(Originally entitled Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age)
By Gregory Fegel

Professionals and academics who disagree with the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) have been ostracized for their contrary views, resulting in termination of their employment, or in forced retirement.

Schwan Glacier region – Photo courtesy Josh Cooley

Polar bear expert Mitchell Taylor, Ph.D., says that the polar bear population has been increasing for the past 40 years, and that polar bears are not currently threatened by warming. Because of his contrary opinion, Taylor was not invited to the 2009 meeting of the Polar Bear Specialist Group, although he had participated in every PBSG meeting from 1981 to 2018. This shunning by the PBSG effectively ended Taylor’s career in polar bear research, and it forced him to retire.

A similar fate has happened to many professionals and academics who have defied the diktat of the AGW “consensus”. The punishments meted out to Taylor and other skeptics by the professional and academic establishment have had a chilling effect on dissent, and the result is that today, few professionals and academics will question the AGW theory, for fear of losing their jobs and their careers. In academia, and in public forums, the AGW theorists continually and consistently refuse to debate the subject of AGW with qualified skeptics.

From the Oregonian: “In 2011 the Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever resigned from the American Physical Society after the group stated, “the evidence is incontrovertible: global warming is occurring.” Giaever’s response: “Incontrovertible is not a scientific word. Nothing is incontrovertible in science.”

As a result, the 87-year-old Giaever has become one of the highest profile climate-change deniers. … He argues that the global temperature since 1800 has been remarkably stable and that carbon dioxide is not a “major climate gas.” He insists that global-warming data from NASA and other respected sources is wrong and explains why he believes that. He says there is no way to accurately measure the average temperature of the globe. (NASA, to be clear, states unequivocally that there is a “scientific consensus”: Earth’s climate is heating up.)”

From the Oregonian: “The Oregon Museum of Science and Industry has pulled the plug on a presentation from three scientists critical of the theory of man-made global warming, saying the panel wasn’t balanced. Oregon’s chapter of the American Meteorological Society had scheduled the scientists to speak Tuesday at OMSI, which has long provided free space to the group for meetings. … Gordon Fulks, a local physicist, was one of the scheduled speakers. He said the society tried to round up speakers with opposing viewpoints to join the panel, but they refused.”

The AGW skeptics want to debate the subject of AGW, and the AGW alarmists refuse to engage in a debate. The AGW skeptics dispute the government and establishment position, while the AGW alarmists loyally support the government and establishment position. So yes, there is a psychological, attitudinal, and behavioral difference between the AGW skeptics and the AGW alarmists,

Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age (2009), by Gregory Fegel

See more here:

See also:

“The main flaw in the AGW theory is that its proponents focus on evidence from only the past one thousand years at most, while ignoring the evidence from the past million years — evidence which is essential for a true understanding of climatology.” – Gregory Fegel

22 thoughts on “Destroying the careers of those who defy the diktat”

    • They don’t care about or believe truth or evidence.
      They just want obedience and shekels and the more the better.

  1. I wonder if the new overlords of the truth do it on purpose to keep sheep in a guilty set of mind, like when the Catholics preached fire and brimstone to keep their sheep unsure and in fear – unable to think and act freely.

  2. AGW … don’t believe in it …

    Global Warming from the inside out, via solar dynamics, though … seems to be in the cards.

    That, while regular cyclical upticks in of solar energy arrive here from our sun, coupled with upticks in cosmic ray energy in during the periods between coronal hole solar wind upticks, continue as they have been doing.

    While such continues, watch for atmospheric mixing that will potentially display as cooling in some areas as cold pushed there via atmospheric mixing results in periods cooler than normal, in some areas, for a while.

    Watch for the equator and Tropics to warm, likewise, the pole areas, over time; everything between the poles and the tropics, going topsy-turvy via abrupt climate events; such changes taking place there while mixing bowl dynamics unfold …

    As energy gets added in here, watch for upticks in earthquakes and volcanoes; likewise, tropical storm events tied to solar dynamics.

    Let’s see how things unfold … while such cyclical coronal hole solar wind upticks continue … coupled with cosmic ray upticks of energy in during the troughs of solar wind coronal hole upticks …

    If those cycles don’t continue … all bets being off, for further global warming; yet, take note … while such energy in cycles continue, the atmospheric mixing that results, it seems, in some areas will present as cooling at times …

    Umbrellas, snow shovels, sunscreen, all at the ready … depending perhaps on just where you might be; perhaps food and water, as well.

    Atmospheric mixing dynamics likely will also effect crop yields in a variety of ways, most of those likely being unfavorable as growing season dynamics go topsy-turvy in some areas, as well.

    Let’s see what unfolds, over time; in the meantime, nothing will be boring, it seems.

  3. As tough as it is on some, this is in many ways a good thing. It drives critical thinking individuals to conduct their own research, to quietly and repeatedly dispute “consensus” and “incontrovertible” science the nonsense they are. It pushes ciizen science to more actively dispute institutional science. Science needs this depserately and not just in climatology.

  4. if he was a paid up member of that group then they had no right to refuse him entrance
    quoting groucho marx: I’d not want to be a member of any club that wanted me as a member.
    In this case refusing to pay fees and having to listen to their bullshit should be seen as a bous not a minus.
    but yes ANY dissent fro the agw humans did it meme isnt allowed
    skeptical is the opposite of gullible!
    I know which I choose to be;-)

    • As per the Wikipedia article linked to in there it seems that should have read “1981 to 2005” … perhaps those being held every four years; see this excerpt:

      “One of the negative effects of climate change is the decline of polar bear populations. Taylor believes that “Polar bears, as a species, do not appear to be threatened or in decline based on the data that I’ve seen at the present time, although some populations do seem to be experiencing deleterious effects from climate change.”[2][dead link] Taylor was not invited to the 2009 meeting of the Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) in Copenhagen, though he had been a participant in all the previous PBSG meetings from 1981 to 2005.[3]

      “According to Taylor, Dr. Andrew Derocher, who was then the chairman of the PBSG, explained that Taylor’s rejection had nothing to do with his polar bear expertise: “it was the position you’ve taken on global warming that brought opposition”. Dr. Taylor was allegedly told that his views running “counter to human-induced climate change are extremely unhelpful”, and that his signing of the Manhattan Declaration was “inconsistent with the position taken by the PBSG”.[1] The PBSG’s press release after the meeting stated, “The PBSG renewed the conclusion from previous meetings that the greatest challenge to conservation of polar bears is ecological change in the Arctic resulting from climatic warming.”[4]

      “When asked, Dr. Derocher clarified that, “Dr. Taylor retired from the Nunavut government last year… Involvement with the PBSG is restricted to those active in polar bear research and management and Dr. Taylor no longer fits within our guidelines of involvement… I will also note that our former Chair, Scott Schliebe of the US Fish and Wildlife Service is not attending this meeting. He also retired in 2008 and is no longer active in the field… This meeting is about coordinating ongoing and future research and management. Dr. Taylor is no longer in a position to assist with such issues. The PBSG has heard Dr. Taylor’s views on climate warming many times. I would note that Dr. Taylor is not a trained climatologist and his perspectives are not relevant to the discussions and intent of this meeting.” [3] ” – Wiki page linked to in the article at

      • Thanks to Bob Hoye and Cam McNaughton for noticing and clarifying the error in my article above, which should read 1981 to 2005, not 2018.

  5. The moment it will start freezing again it will be claimed that it is due to ‘Paris’ and the initiatives of the energy-transition. They can destroy careers but not thoughts. The ‘average man’ I spoke to don’t believe it, only graduated people are sensitive for the idea of upwarming caused by human beings alone

  6. Quote:
    Professionals and academics who disagree with the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) have been ostracized for their contrary views, resulting in termination of their employment, or in forced retirement.
    Opposition to fake science isn’t dissent to a plainly false theory.
    It is correcting the propaganda given to politicians so that they can jump on the Carbon tax bandwagon and gain loot of lovely loot to spend on their favourite wheezes and go to expensive junkets in warm resorts at vast expense, burning vast quantities of Hydro carbons to get there.
    The next 20 years of cooling, glacial expansion, sea level dropping by nearly 1 M will put paid to AGW, and also put paid to the IPPC tossers and those running the UN.

  7. This is no longer the Post-Modern Era. We are in, and indeed have been for some time, the Post-Truth Era (2004, Ralph Keyes).

  8. Will the modern-day equivalent of the witches of the past be blamed for promoting global warming instead of cooling? The modern day equivalent may be fake scientists. When the truth comes out, you will not want to be a ‘consensus scientist’. I think people might get a bit angry.

    • The problem lies within so called academic freedom enjoyed by the climate departments of many, if not all western universities charging fat fees to student for worthless AGW degrees.
      Academic freedom to research, debate and educate is a noble cause, but not where political/religious entryism has taken over a branch of science to the extent that Climate Science has been taken over for the last 40 years.
      Academic freedom is not a licence to commit fraud using public funds in order to provide the political tools to unelected NGAs, both internal and external, to destroy the Western Civilisation from within.
      Nor is it the licence to provide the propaganda tools for the enrichment of failed US politicians or even worse corrupt financial crash institutions such as the World Bank carrying out a biased Green Socalist policy of preventing third world development, particulary in Africa.

  9. Luckily for the US, President Trump is a total pragmatist, doing whatever works. The Church of AGW can spout all the hot air they want, and figuratively burn “skeptics” (witches?) at the stake, but the Trump Administration and American farmers, ranchers and small businesses will simply adapt to whatever Mother Nature throws at us. The EU and the multinationals, not so much.

  10. There are many examples of “political science” trumping (no pun intended) real science. For example, over a period of several years, I’noted news reports where the liberal governors of at least four states fired the State Climatologist in their state, because they wouldn’t toe the party line on AGW. The states were Delaware, Oregon, Maryland and …. I don’t recall which was the fourth state to do so — though I think it may have been New Jersey. I wouldn’t be surprised if there were others, besides the four I saw who got the axe for sticking to their guns. Paying attention to the hard, green facts is a dangerous thing to do in modern America.

    Losing one’s career is what happens to scientists who express skepticism in the sacred tenets of the AGW religion and insist on putting facts above dogma.

  11. The thing is there is NO GHG effect, on earth, Venus, Mars,Titan or any other planet. That is a physical FACT. Therefore the whole AGW theory is a lie. Also today on he talks about a possible future satellite, to study the solar magnetic effect on the iononosphere, that would if they get the true data, would disprove AGW.

  12. 97% of scientists say that Greenland is melting, that snow cover is decreasing, that sea ice is in a death spiral, that hurricanes and tornadoes are worse and more frequent, that sea levels are rapidly rising, that heat in recent years is worse than it was in the 1930’s.

    Each and every one these claims are totally false and in fact, just the opposite is happening. It can easily be verified as such by just examining the data. So what does that tell you about scientific consensus?

Comments are closed.