Climate change scientist claims he has been forced from new job in 'McCarthy'-style witch-hunt by academics across the world


A globally-renowned climate scientist has been forced to step down from a think-tank after he was subjected to ‘Mc-Carthy’-style pressure from scientists around the world

Read more:


What is the American obsession with climate change? Why can’t we agree to continue to research both sides of the argument?

My daughter had a science teacher last year that assigned a paper where the students had to defend the fact that global warming is true against anyone who says otherwise.

We had to explain to our daughter that there are good arguments on both sides of the topic of climate change and that the paper should be about her researching both sides and coming up with her own conclusion, not the one the teacher thinks she should have.

Funny, the same week our son was taking a course at the local community college and they watched a film claiming climate change was bogus.

The article makes a good point that common sense is lost when it comes to global warming and a balanced discussion.


I agree. Academic environments should be places where such things are examined from both sides. The public needs knowledge, not sound bites. The fact that this or that part of the world is experiencing warming or someplace is melting, should not get the knee-jerk “it’s climate change.” In-depth research is required, not sound bites. As I watched this debacle unfold, I asked myself, “Are governments and industries who pour billions of tons of pollutants into the atmosphere looking for good solutions or just a chance to make a buck?” My conclusion is that among the proposals for mitigating climate change, they have run the gamut from the very expensive to the extremely expensive. And the public, as opposed to the mega-corporations, will foot the bill.

Turning “climate change” into a growth industry appears to be the goal as opposed to owners of factories installing off the shelf technology to mitigate emissions, but that would hurt profits. And for those doomsayers out there, including a few scientists - oh well, if you can’t agree then we’re all going to die.

In the meantime, sensible climatologists are still at a loss as to what to do as the climate is too complex for them to model accurately. There are proposals out there that appear workable, but they cannot predict any side effects that may occur.

This doesn’t surprise me.



The thought isn’t original with me, but it seems clear that climate change / global warmingism has become a civic religion (conveniently apart from any inconvenient theistic entanglements). This new civic religion comes complete with inquisitions, public humiliation, extreme pressure to comply, threats of loss of academic employment, a “priesthood” of “scientists” and various High Clergy such as Al Gore. To express any doubt as to the Received Truth of this Climate Religion is to literally be branded a heretic and public enemy. This “religion” even comes complete with its own prophets of doom and climate Armaggedon - witness the news story as recently as yesterday that some scients in France are saying we have only 500 days left to turn it around. Well, make that 499 by now.


Oh brother.
He calls *this *McCarthy-ism?

Receiving emails from colleagues all over the world saying the group is “questionable”?
And the main pressure is an employee who refuses to write a paper with him?

Obviously, people can choose with whom to write a paper. Perhaps the employee doesn’t like this scientists views and does not respect him.
And if his hundreds of colleagues do not agree with his views, why are those “threats”?
He’s a grown-up, can’t he take some criticism?

He claims he joined the group to ease the “tension in the climate change community between activists and people who have questions.”
Well, there isn’t tension between activists and those who have questions.
There is tension between activists and people who* deny* climate change. Big difference.
And this group has been described as “UK’s most prominent source of climate-change denial.”

I don’t see how he was “forced out”.
Sounds like he left of his own choosing. But if he believed in what he was doing, his un- approving colleagues wouldn’t and shouldn’t make a difference to him.
Neither should what strangers say on blogs.

He does sound like a “crybaby”.



On the contrary, “climate change” has religious fanatic aspects that apply. An actual study of the recent scholarship of the so-called McCarthy ‘witch hunts’ will reveal that certain “revealed truths” are totally wrong.

While the self-proclaimed elite squabble, one more day ticks off until we all suffocate to death and/or billionaires begin buying up soon-to-be beachfront land in Arizona while their homes along the Riviera are washed away.



Science is full of controversies. That’s what science is all about - falsifying prevailing theories, not accepting them blindly. A theory, in science, is an explanation of a set of observations/facts and represents the highest level of knowledge that science can present. There are always dissidents and doubters - and don’t listen to journalists and politicians.

If you, as a layperson, want to know what position is the more likely one you need to go to the experts in their field. Some 95-97% of climate experts think that climate change is happening and that it is human induced. You will never get 100% agreement. And that has nothing to do with personal opinions, feelings or being religious or not.


I am unaware of any other current scientific controversy that has generated the degree of public scorn, media-driven hype, academic persecution, and general Political Correctness as has the climate issue, certainly in the U.S. And none of that has to do with a lack of “100% agreement.” A little research will show that in the '70’s and early 80’s, those same voices were all concerned about Global Cooling, running out of food by the year 2000, uncontrolled population growth, and similar crises.


You should be aware of the creation/evolution/ID controversy which certainly seems to keep the public discussions alive, especially in the US. But I agree, it is not a point of controversy in the world of science.
Things do change in science. Scientists go wherever the evidence leads. Sixty years ago people laughed about continents moving. Climate warming was already considered in the 19th century when people discovered that CO2 is less transparent to infrared. It wasn’t a problem then. Now it is.
I don’t want to go into any discussion on matters of science on this forum, but am happy to do so in some other form.


I don’t purport to be an expert, but I think this 95-97% claim is misleading. First of all, if one goes by the co-signers of position papers, a lot of them aren’t scientists at all. Some are scientists, but without particular qualification in a field clearly identifiable with climate.

But I also understand that endorsing climate change is a good way to get grants even if the real point of the study is about something entirely different. A paper on the mating cycles of woodchucks might add a blurb saying something like “…but manmade global warming may change the mating cycle in the future…” If one ever sees any kind of nature show, particularly produced by National Geographic, that tip of the hat is always there. The show might be about whale migration, but at the very end there is something like “…as manmade warming heats the arctic ocean, the krill supply changes may alter the migration patterns of the baleen whale population…”

It’s perfunctory, and it doesn’t take any kind of scientist to figure out why they do that. But one can be reasonably sure the producers of the “baleen whale” study are added to the list of the “95-97%”.

Then there are those who believe there is MMGW, but don’t think it portends any kind of harmful influence. That group, along with those who don’t believe in it at all, would include the majority of meteorologists.

Then there are those who believe in MMGW but for reasons other than CO2 emissions. There are those who believe the “cow-burp” theory (never mind that buffalo burped too before the industrial age). There are those who believe we have created massive “heat sinks” in urban environments that collect heat that would otherwise be modified by evaporation on forests or grasslands. There are those who believe increased desertification due to improper animal management or farming is the “big heat sink” and causes MMGW.

So, it’s not as unified as one might think, and some of it is extremely doubtful in the count.

But for that, we understand, governments and environmentalists want peoples cost of living to go up “make utility bills skyrocket” is the way Obama posed it. Well, before we do things that very clearly are harmful to human beings, it seems to me we ought to be a lot more sure we are saving people from something worse before we do it.

But that can’t be done. It can’t be done because no matter how much suffering the government causes in the U.S., the impact on emissions worldwide will be negligible. Everybody knows that. Because everybody knows it, the MMGW promoters reach for some explanation as to how it won’t be negligible. “Others will follow our good example” is perhaps the most commonly stated justification for causing human suffering, job loss, high prices and perhaps some deaths.

But there is not the slightest reason to believe others will do that, and every reason to believe they won’t.

Closer to the topic. In some circles, the regard of one’s peers is of little consequence. Most lawyers, for example, don’t care very much what other lawyers think of them. But academics do care. There is the issue of tenure. If you’re blocked, the gates of academic eden never open for you, and you’re a poorly-paid adjunct forever. If those who control academic journals are against you, you can’t publish. If those who control grants won’t touch you, your lifelong project never gets funded. And your academic colleagues will not join with you in textbook authorship, a very significant source of professorial revenue.

Academia is collegial in a lot of ways, and if you’re out in the cold, it’s a very chilly environment.


That’s because science is no longer about science, it’s about figuring out which hot-button topic will get you the biggest grant.


Or creating a trillion dollar industry based on fear. The climate is always changing.



Yes, there are frauds, arrogant and self-centered people among scientist, even criminals. But science itself is self-correcting. The truth comes out, or at least as close as possible we humans can get.
Of course, the 95-97% I mentioned in an earlier post who agree with climate warming happening, are climatologists, not meteorologists, engineers, chemists, science writers etc. etc.
And talking about grants, we could also look where the remaining 3-5% get their money from.

I am surprised to see that the whole thing is still a hot topic in the US. A sizeable proportion of scientists believe in God (some people say 40%, but that’s debatable), not much different to the general population. I am always proud to be a Catholic, with one reason being that the Catholic Church is so open to science. Let’s keep it that way.


There is virtually no such thing as a “climatologist” per se. Almost no university offers a degree in “climatology”. Those who are given that designation by themselves or others are people who have degrees in something else and produce papers, articles or films involving climate. Saying that most of them are “climate experts” is a little bit like saying a guy who knows a lot about liver function, but not much else, is a doctor.

The closest thing to a “climatologist” is a “meteorologist”. Meteorologists actually do study climatic conditions and the physics behind them. In most universities, their course of study is scientifically quite rigorous. Most of them either don’t believe in MMGW at all or do believe in it but don’t think it’s a hazard to mankind.


Thank you for the link. Another science writer/contributor. Yes, there are scientists who specialize in long-term climate change. A fairly new discipline, but there are hundreds, probably thousands of papers written and published in specialized journals.
But even 89% of those ‘meteorologists’ referred to in your link, who look at the weather for the next few days, agree that climate warming is real. Only 30% are ‘very worried’, whatever that means.
I am happy to discuss that matter further, but I think that this forum is not the appropriate place.


[sign]the end is near…repent![/sign]


Who believes in God?





I am familiar with those statistics. There are dozens of them floating around, often contradicting each other. There are millions of scientists who believe in God. I am certainly not the only one. Most of us work quietly without being aware that there is a problem.
I was over 40 before I even heard about that apparent clash between science and religion.
Just two days ago I gave a 1-hr talk on that topic to a group of Baptists (not the most open ones to modern science). That was after giving them a 1-hr talk a week earlier. They were so surprised, they wanted to hear more.
I really feel guilty to argue here with a Forum Elder, and I have been told that this topic is taboo when I joined a few weeks ago. I am currently writing a thesis on the topic of Intelligent Design under the umbrella of philosophy. I am happy to share my knowledge and experience, which is not easy in a few lines, but I can name a long list of serious scientists, Catholic and other Christians who have written extensively on that topic. Please don’t lump us all together with Richard Dawkins et al.


The thing everyone needs to be aware of is that this topic is brought so frequently, everyone needs to ask, why? Does an auto mechanic consult the Church to fix a car? What is the Church’s position on Quantum Entanglement? We get nothing about the latter but plenty about this. Science, by definition, must exclude anything that is not material, including God. So why bother making any connection between science and something it cannot study? It makes no sense.

I’m not lumping you or anybody with anyone else. Intelligent Design is reality. Living things look designed because they are designed. Certain mammals don’t lay half an egg, hoping to get a shell down the road. With all due respect, coming here and making assertions - and I’m speaking very generally - about belief and science is like saying, I believe this device will work. When it cannot perform its intended function, it is ruled a failure, a fraud, or both. What you believe about the device has no bearing on its function. That’s science. It functions or not.

It is sad that enough has been written to create a wall. This need not be the case. Dialogue is good, but it pains me to see some people elated when the Church “accepts” something scientific and quite angry when it does not accept certain scientific things. Angry or not, scientists will go to their labs every day, not funded by you or I, and do what they’re told.

Please pardon the digression.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit