Climate Depot Exclusive
Dr. Caleb Rossiter was “terminated” via email as an “Associate Fellow” from the progressive group Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), following his May 4th, 2014 Wall Street Journal OpEd titled “Sacrificing Africa for Climate Change,” in which he called man-made global warming an “unproved science.” Rossiter also championed the expansion of carbon based energy in Africa. Dr. Rossiter is an adjunct professor at American University. Rossiter, who has taught courses in climate statistics, holds a PhD in policy analysis and a masters degree in mathematics.
In an exclusive interview with Climate Depot, Dr. Rossiter explained: “If people ever say that fears of censorship for ‘climate change’ views are overblown, have them take a look at this: Just two days after I published a piece in the Wall Street Journal calling for Africa to be allowed the ‘all of the above’ energy strategy we have in the U.S., the Institute for Policy Studies terminated my 23-year relationship with them…because my analysis and theirs ‘diverge.’”
“I have tried to get [IPS] to discuss and explain their rejection of my analysis,’ Rossiter told Climate Depot. “When I countered a claim of ‘rapidly accelerating’ temperature change with the [UN] IPCC’s own data’, showing the nearly 20-year temperature pause — the best response I ever got was ‘Caleb, I don’t have time for this.’”
[Climate Depot Note: Intimidation of skeptical scientists has been well documented.Climate scientist Dr. Lennart Bengtsson — who converted from warmist to skeptic – resigns from skeptical group after ‘enormous group pressure’ from warmists – Now ‘worried about my health and safety’ – ‘Colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship’
Many politically left of center scientists are also converting to skeptics: Scientist Dr. Daniel Botkin Tells Congress why he reversed his belief in global warming to become a skeptic: ‘There are several lines of evidence suggesting that it (AGW) is a weaker case today, not a stronger case’
Caleb Rossiter
Climate Depot has obtained a copy of a May 7, 2014 email that John Cavanagh, the director of IPS since 1998, sent to Rossiter with the subject “Ending IPS Associate Fellowship.”
“Dear Caleb, We would like to inform you that we are terminating your position as an Associate Fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies,” Cavanagh wrote in the opening sentence of the email.
“Unfortunately, we now feel that your views on key issues, including climate science, climate justice, and many aspects of U.S. policy to Africa, diverge so significantly from ours that a productive working relationship is untenable. The other project directors of IPS feel the same,” Cavanagh explained.
“We thank you for that work and wish you the best in your future endeavors,” Cavanagh and his IPS associate Emira Woods added. [Full Text of IPS email is reproduced further below.]
‘Obama has long been delusional on this issue’
On May 13, 2013, a year before his termination from IPS, Rossiter wrote a blog on his website further detailing his climate views. The article was titled: “The Debate is finally over on ‘Global Warming’ – Because Nobody will Debate.” He wrote: “I have assigned hundreds of climate articles as I taught and learned about the physics of climate, the construction of climate models, and the statistical evidence of extreme weather.”
“My blood simply boils too hot when I read the blather, daily, about climate catastrophe. It is so well-meaning, and so misguided,” Rossiter explained.
Rossiter also ripped President Barack Obama’s climate claims in his 2013 blog post: “Obama has long been delusional on this issue, speaking of a coming catastrophe and seeing himself as King Canute, stopping the rise in sea-level. But he really went off the chain in his state of the union address this year. ‘For the sake of our children and our future’ he issued an appeal to authority with no authority behind it.”
Rosstier’s May 4, 2014 Wall Street Journal OpEd also pulled no punches. Rossiter, who holds a masters in mathematics, wrote: “I started to suspect that the climate-change data were dubious a decade ago while teaching statistics. Computer models used by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to determine the cause of the six-tenths of one degree Fahrenheit rise in global temperature from 1980 to 2000 could not statistically separate fossil-fueled and natural trends.”
His Wall Street Journal OpEd continued: “The left wants to stop industrialization—even if the hypothesis of catastrophic, man-made global warming is false.” He added: “Western policies seem more interested in carbon-dioxide levels than in life expectancy.”
“Each American accounts for 20 times the emissions of each African. We are not rationing our electricity. Why should Africa, which needs electricity for the sort of income-producing enterprises and infrastructure that help improve life expectancy? The average in Africa is 59 years—in America it’s 79,” he explained.
“How terrible to think that so many people in the West would rather block such success stories in the name of unproved science,” he concluded his WSJ OpEd.
Rossiter’s and IPS seemed a natural fit, given Rossiter’s long history as an anti-war activist. IPS describes itself as “a community of public scholars and organizers linking peace, justice, and the environment in the U.S. and globally. We work with social movements to promote true democracy and challenge concentrated wealth, corporate influence, and military power.
But Rosstier’s credentials as a long-time progressive could not trump his growing climate skepticism or his unabashed promotion of carbon based fuels for Africa.
Rossiter’s website describes himself as “a progressive activist who has spent four decades fighting against and writing about the U.S. foreign policy of supporting repressive governments in the formerly colonized countries.”
“I’ve spent my life on the foreign-policy left. I opposed the Vietnam War, U.S. intervention in Central America in the 1980s and our invasion of Iraq. I have headed a group trying to block U.S. arms and training for “friendly” dictators, and I have written books about how U.S. policy in the developing world is neocolonial,” Rossiter wrote in the Wall Street Journal on May 4.
Rossiter’s Wall Street Journal OpEd continued: “The left wants to stop industrialization—even if the hypothesis of catastrophic, man-made global warming is false. John Feffer, my colleague at the Institute for Policy Studies, wrote in the Dec. 8, 2009, Huffington Post that ‘even if the mercury weren’t rising’ we should bring ‘the developing world into the postindustrial age in a sustainable manner.’ He sees the ‘climate crisis [as] precisely the giant lever with which we can, following Archimedes, move the world in a greener, more equitable direction.”
“Then, as now, the computer models simply built in the assumption that fossil fuels are the culprit when temperatures rise, even though a similar warming took place from 1900 to 1940, before fossil fuels could have caused it. The IPCC also claims that the warming, whatever its cause, has slightly increased the length of droughts, the frequency of floods, the intensity of storms, and the rising of sea levels, projecting that these impacts will accelerate disastrously. Yet even the IPCC acknowledges that the average global temperature today remains unchanged since 2000, and did not rise one degree as the models predicted.
…
“But it is as an Africanist, rather than a statistician, that I object most strongly to ‘climate justice.’ Where is the justice for Africans when universities divest from energy companies and thus weaken their ability to explore for resources in Africa? Where is the justice when the U.S. discourages World Bank funding for electricity-generation projects in Africa that involve fossil fuels, and when the European Union places a ‘global warming’ tax on cargo flights importing perishable African goods?”
#
Full reprint of “termination” email from Institute for Policy Studies:
—–Forwarded Message—–
From: John Cavanagh
Sent: May 7, 2014 9:51 PM
To: Caleb Rossiter
Cc: Emira Woods, Joy Zarembka
Subject: Ending IPS Associate Fellowship
Dear Caleb,
We would like to inform you that we are terminating your position as an Associate Fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies. As you know, Associate Fellows at IPS are sponsored by an IPS project director or by the director. In your case, both of us sponsored your Fellowship. Unfortunately, we now feel that your views on key issues, including climate science, climate justice, and many aspects of U.S. policy to Africa, diverge so significantly from ours that a productive working relationship is untenable. The other project directors of IPS feel the same.
I (John) have worked with you on and off for two decades and I admire the project you did on Demilitarization and Democracy through IPS. I also admire the work you did on Capitol Hill with Rep. Delahunt. Both of us have worked with you in other capacities over the years with strong mutual respect. We thank you for that work and wish you the best in your future endeavors.
If you would like to meet with us in person, we are available. John will be in Berlin from Thursday afternoon through Monday evening, but could meet after that. Emira is here over the next week if you’d like to meet sooner.
Best regards,
John and Emira
#
End full reprint of IPS termination email.
#
Climate Depot’s Coverage of Rossiter’s WSJ article:
Caleb Rossiter: Sacrificing Africa for Climate Change: ‘Western policies seem more interested in carbon-dioxide levels than in life expectancy’ – The left wants to stop industrialization—even if the hypothesis of catastrophic, man-made global warming is false. John Feffer, my colleague at the Institute for Policy Studies, wrote in the Dec. 8, 2009, Huffington Post that “even if the mercury weren’t rising” we should bring “the developing world into the postindustrial age in a sustainable manner.” He sees the “climate crisis [as] precisely the giant lever with which we can, following Archimedes, move the world in a greener, more equitable direction.”
#
Dr. Rossiter’s full WSJ OpEd, reprinted with permission of Dr. Rossiter.
Sacrificing Africa for Climate Change
Western Policies Seem More Interested in Carbon-dioxide Levels than in Life Expectancy
Caleb S. Rossiter
May 5, 2014, Wall Street Journal Editorial Page
Every year environmental groups celebrate a night when institutions in developed countries (including my own university) turn off their lights as a protest against fossil fuels. They say their goal is to get America and Europe to look from space like Africa: dark, because of minimal energy use.
But that is the opposite of what’s desired by Africans I know. They want Africa at night to look like the developed world, with lights in every little village and with healthy people, living longer lives, sitting by those lights. Real years added to real lives should trump the minimal impact that African carbon emissions could have on a theoretical catastrophe.
I’ve spent my life on the foreign-policy left. I opposed the Vietnam War, U.S. intervention in Central America in the 1980s and our invasion of Iraq. I have headed a group trying to block U.S. arms and training for “friendly” dictators, and I have written books about how U.S. policy in the developing world is neocolonial.
But I oppose my allies’ well-meaning campaign for “climate justice.” More than 230 organizations, including Africa Action and Oxfam, want industrialized countries to pay “reparations” to African governments for droughts, rising sea levels and other alleged results of what Ugandan strongman Yoweri Museveni calls “climate aggression.” And I oppose the campaign even more for trying to deny to Africans the reliable electricity–and thus the economic development and extended years of life–that fossil fuels can bring.
The left wants to stop industrialization–even if the hypothesis of catastrophic, man-made global warming is false. John Feffer, my colleague at the Institute for Policy Studies, wrote in the Dec. 8, 2009, Huffington Post that “even if the mercury weren’t rising” we should bring “the developing world into the postindustrial age in a sustainable manner.” He sees the “climate crisis [as] precisely the giant lever with which we can, following Archimedes, move the world in a greener, more equitable direction.”
I started to suspect that the climate-change data were dubious a decade ago while teaching statistics. Computer models used by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to determine the cause of the six-tenths of one degree Fahrenheit rise in global temperature from 1980 to 2000 could not statistically separate fossil-fueled and natural trends.
Then, as now, the computer models simply built in the assumption that fossil fuels are the culprit when temperatures rise, even though a similar warming took place from 1900 to 1940, before fossil fuels could have caused it. The IPCC also claims that the warming, whatever its cause, has slightly increased the length of droughts, the frequency of floods, the intensity of storms, and the rising of sea levels, projecting that these impacts will accelerate disastrously. Yet even the IPCC acknowledges that the average global temperature today remains unchanged since 2000, and did not rise one degree as the models predicted.
But it is as an Africanist, rather than a statistician, that I object most strongly to “climate justice.” Where is the justice for Africans when universities divest from energy companies and thus weaken their ability to explore for resources in Africa? Where is the justice when the U.S. discourages World Bank funding for electricity-generation projects in Africa that involve fossil fuels, and when the European Union places a “global warming” tax on cargo flights importing perishable African goods? Even if the wildest claims about the current impact of fossil fuels on the environment and the models predicting the future impact all prove true and accurate, Africa should be exempted from global restraints as it seeks to modernize.
With 15% of the world’s people, Africa produces less than 5% of carbon-dioxide emissions. With 4% of global population, America produces 25% of these emissions. In other words, each American accounts for 20 times the emissions of each African. We are not rationing our electricity. Why should Africa, which needs electricity for the sort of income-producing enterprises and infrastructure that help improve life expectancy? The average in Africa is 59 years–in America it’s 79. Increased access to electricity was crucial in China’s growth, which raised life expectancy to 75 today from 59 in 1968.
According to the World Bank, 24% of Africans have access to electricity and the typical business loses power for 56 days each year. Faced with unreliable power, businesses turn to diesel generators, which are three times as expensive as the electricity grid. Diesel also produces black soot, a respiratory health hazard. By comparison, bringing more-reliable electricity to more Africans would power the cleaning of water in villages, where much of the population still lives, and replace wood and dung fires as the source of heat and lighting in shacks and huts, removing major sources of disease and death. In the cities, reliable electricity would encourage businesses to invest and reinvest rather than send their profits abroad.
Mindful of the benefits, the Obama administration’s Power Africa proposal and the World Bank are trying to double African access to electricity. But they have been hamstrung by the opposition of their political base to fossil fuels–even though off-grid and renewable power from the sun, tides and wind is still too unreliable, too hard to transmit, and way too expensive for Africa to build and maintain as its primary source of power.
In 2010 the left tried to block a World Bank loan for a new coal-fired plant in South Africa. Fortunately, the loan was approved (with the U.S. abstaining). The drive to provide electricity for the poor has been perhaps the greatest achievement of South Africa’s post-apartheid governments.
Standing on the mountainside at night in Cape Town, overlooking the “Coloured” township of Mitchell’s Plain and the African township of Khayelitsha, you can now see a twinkling blanket of bulbs. How terrible to think that so many people in the West would rather block such success stories in the name of unproved science.
Rossiter directs the American Exceptionalism Media Project. He is an adjunct professor at American University and an associate fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies.
#
Climate Depot’s Related Links:
Dec. 2013 – Wash Post: ‘Caleb Rossiter recently quit his job as a ninth-grade algebra teacher at the Friendship Tech Prep public charter school in Southeast Washington because, he says, his supervisors pressured him to artificially inflate failing grades and ignored his safety concerns by sending two disruptive students back into his class.’ – Rossiter, a 62-year-old college professor and policy analyst, didn’t want his failing students removed from his class. He wanted them to do the work they needed to learn. Bad grades are a useful way to communicate that. Squelching his effort to sound an alarm seems in tune with the tendency of American high schools to let disengaged students slip through to graduation. — Rossiter told me he thought he was going to be fired “for refusing to raise to D’s the 30 percent of my students who earned F’s in the first quarter.” He said an administrator told him “this can’t be.” Rossiter said he was told “it would damage the school if grades were reported to the Charter School Board, showing that the students were ‘not on track to graduate’ — which of course they are not.”
Related Links:
Top Swedish Climate Scientist Says Warming Not Noticeable: ‘The warming we have had last a 100 years is so small that if we didn’t have climatologists to measure it we wouldn’t have noticed it at all’ – Award-Winning Dr. Lennart Bengtsson, formerly of UN IPCC: ‘We Are Creating Great Anxiety Without It Being Justified’
UN Scientists Who Have Turned on the UN IPCC & Man-Made Climate Fears — A Climate Depot Flashback Report – Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
‘Some of the most formidable opponents of climate hysteria include politically liberal physics Nobel laureate, Ivar Giaever; Freeman Dyson; father of the Gaia Hypothesis, James Lovelock — ‘Left-center chemist, Fritz Vahrenholt, one of the fathers of the German environmental movement’
Scientist Dr. Daniel Botkin Tells Congress why he reversed his belief in global warming to become a skeptic: ‘There are several lines of evidence suggesting that it (AGW) is a weaker case today, not a stronger case’ – Prominent Scientist Dr. Botkin, who has studied climate change for 45 years, told the Committee in Q&A: ‘I have been concerned about global warming since 1968 and in the 1980s, it looked like the weight of evidence lent towards human induced climate change, to a significant extant, and since then it’s moved against it.’
32 Responses
I thought only the Catholic Church did the excommunication thing. Guess the church of climate science holds to the same precepts.
Next you’ll be getting the burning at the stake thing going on.
Oh, but just think of the CO2 emmissions!
Excommunication for the CC is unusual, rare and follows a long discussion.
Years go by as the person who is being questioned debates his position.
If a theologian does not believe in Catholic dogma then he places himself outside of the CC, so cannot preach as a Catholic.
Excommunication is a recognition of this.
It states the obvious.
Caleb Rossiter’s termination was immediate, summary, non negotiable with a latte appeals mechanism.
This is contrary to the natural justice that his employer advocated for the poor and hungry of Africa.
Don’t let an innocence of the excommunication process in the CC blind to the injustice done to Caleb Rossiter and through it, to the poor of Africa.
My two cents worthy of observation and inclusion in this debate.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCTiL1q9YbrVam5nP2xzFTWQ
Well, a friend’s sense, let’s say, Yes?. (Thanks Ben!)
Not trying to be funny nor punny, but the irony is delicious. Hope it awakens new found ‘reality’ for everyone debaters. Peace!
As much as I despise the leftist mentality and it’s sure-fire way of crippling the world as we know it. One has to tip the hat to anyone that has the courage and conviction of actually telling the obvious truth without fear or malice. Well Done to the good professor.Hopefully some more useful idiots will open their eyes.
The censorship practiced by the left clearly illustrates how malignant their position on AGW is. When you have to censor, you are revealing what you are hiding. AGW is not sustainable when the truth is revealed.
Another scientist burned at the Cross of Climate Conformity.
Disgusting. Despicable. Discrediting to the entire lot of Climate Scientists.
And they wonder why we don’t trust them!?
I do hope they purchased carbon offsets from Algore Inc. first.
The acolytes of the liberal cult trust them, and that unfortunately is still most people. It never fails to amaze me how many otherwise intelligent people lap up the eco-kook nonsense.
There have been many in years past who have dared to question the “consensus” and been banned from publication by their “peers” which is why many in academia are afraid to speak out. Professor Rossiter wrote a very informative piece in the Wall Street Journal and has now been punished by the high priests of Global Warming ( now known as CC)
Starving the opposition is merely one way to get to a “consensus”. Liberals evidently can’t distinguish between that and censorship, or between that and the salem witch burning.
Wait, I thought it was “climate disruption” now.
I can’t keep up.
Whoa…. those folks said they’d “like to inform” you that you will be terminated. Perhaps they will not if YOU don’t give them permission.
It would seem to me that we are – culturally and scientifically – going backwards. To the Middle Ages. Remember what they did ot anyone who denied the existence of God?
To these people the Enlightenment must have been solely about the discovery of electricity. Climate change and global warming, for me are highly contentious subjects which I see the “against” lobby having the upper hand, in terms of evidence. There is absolutely no basis of fact certain enough to treat this highly respected academic like this. It smacks to me of government interference – nothing must be allowed to interfere with the implementation of taxing ‘the air we exhale’ – which is mostly CO2.
I might have fired him for the bow tie, but not for a little dispute based on the merits of the scientific evidence.
Any organization that uses the term ‘climate justice’ is right up there with Al Qaeda on the terror list as far as I’m concerned.
Delusional idiots
I have just a note that Dr Rossiter has been dismissed from his position at the liberal think tank Institute for Policy Studies as a direct result of writing this fine, truthful, and, may I say, heartfelt piece. It is now common practice for “climate science” boosters to attack informed skeptics in the most vile terms. If they have liberal credentials like Dr Rossiter and myself, they are considered loonies or shills for the oil companies. Of course, Africa and other underdeveloped places in the world need and deserve electricity, and if they have coal reserves locally, there is no reason for these not to be expiated to the fullest until equivalently cheap energy sources become available. Third world development is or should be a liberal cause as should be truth in science. Where are the true liberals and the true scientists?
Hiding in fear. That’s where they are!
“We would like to inform you…”
You betcha they “liked” to. Not even any pretense of “We regret to inform you…”
I have posted this before and, I believe, it is even more appropriate today than it was when first posted. As today, the “Ordainer In Chief” can and does wave “His” magic pen and regulatory agencies leap to “His” commands.:
The scientist Wolfgang Pauli was known for his often less than polite criticism of the work of some of his colleagues. He would sometimes exclaim “wrong” or “completely wrong” when he disagreed with someone. He even sadly said, „Es ist nicht einmal falsch“ [“It is not even wrong”]. The phrase “not even wrong” carries two different connotations. A theory can be “not even wrong” because it is so incomplete and ill-defined that it can’t be used to make firm predictions whose failure would show it to be wrong. This has been the situation of man made global warming/climate change theory from its beginnings to the present day. Most new theoretical ideas begin in this state; it can take quite a bit of work before their implications are understood as to whether the idea is right or wrong. There is, however, something worse than a wrong idea. In the case of the man made global warming/climate change theory, some researchers are abandoning fundamental scientific principals rather that admit a theory is wrong. Worse than being wrong is to refuse to admit it when one is wrong, or, as he phrased it: “Ganz Falsch”, i.e.: it is not even wrong, it is “completely false”. Not one of the computer models being used to predict the future of earth’s climate changes have ever been able to predict the climate changes from the past to the present, even though they were fed every last bit of scientific fact as based on the hard evidence of what has actually happened to our climate to date. That Al Gore (and his sycophants) intentionally use the term “denier” to imply that anyone who dares to disagree with them and their colleagues in the political sphere, or their coconspirators in the United Nations, is akin to the anti holocaust ranting’s of those who hate Jews. He and they also cleverly use the term “outlier”, which in the scientific community defines something in their findings that is at odds with the theory being tested, but is considered to be inconsequential to the final outcome (or “Solution”), to imply that the scientist’s, and any one else who disagrees with them, are not to be believed or listened to. “Scientific Method”? What Scientific Method does not allow for questioning and rigorous rebuttal of any and every theory – however “Established” and “Settled” it may appear to be? (I remind you of Einsteins Theory of Relativity having just been disproved/reproved. I.e.: “Nothing can travel faster than the speed of light” – However, “Something” just did/did not.) Why does the phrase “Socialism” come to mind? It’s because in order to ” … act before all the evidence is in, just in case it’s correct” requires an ungodly blend of Fascistic Socialism and Religious Fervor (a.k.a., “Environmentalism”) to be imposed on everyone. Carbon Credits; Cap and Trade; Mercury filled light bulbs; Toilet Capacity; Bovine Flatulence (a fitting term for the methods the “bull in the china shop” green regulators in charge envision implementing), and there are so many more to mention it would take a infinite compendium to index the injustices to be done in the name of “Saving the Planet”, “Before it’s too late!” (or we really know what we’re doing). Study the evidence with an open mind, not one filled with the preconceived notion that the only “pure” scientists are the ones who do research on the governments dole. (Where do you think most university research grants come from? How about evaluating possible peer pressure and “greener goals”, coupled with the drying up of funds for unpopular or unprofitable research? Don’t forget, tenure is, after all, basically a popularity contest.) If you believe that we can learn from the past, remember the recanting of his heliocentric theory, on the pain of death to be enforced by the “Learned” powers that be, by Galileo.
“…when I read the blather, daily, about climate catastrophe. It is so well-meaning, and so misguided”
It is misguided, but it is not well meaning. Those who blather daily about climate catastrophe are frequently those whose tenure relies largely if not wholly on doing so and being seen to do so. They know that this climate catastrophe hysteria has no scientific basis. They know it is being used as an excuse for governments worldwide to take more of the work product of ordinary people under false pretenses. Unless they are utterly clueless, they also know that the hysteria is being used to usher in more global government under the guise of doing something about a problem that never was a problem.
The only response can be, “Eppure si raffredda.”
The AGW hypothesis is falling like the house of cards it always was.
Perhaps the more egregious mistake was using the words “climate” and “science” in the same sentence?
Surprise! The human race needs CO2. Plant life uses it to synthesize O2. We need O2. End of story. Hopefully any high school student knows this.
The people posting on here are obviously ignorant of the last time we ignored the scientific community and Barney Flintstone went ahead and drove his SUV all over Rockville which led to the end of the last ice age 15,000 years ago and the sea level rose over 300 feet and created Long Island, the Outer Banks, and the English Channel, not to mention drowning the Aleutian land bridge which then meant illegal aliens were forced to come from south of the border instead of the north. These things have consequences, you know. Darn you General Motors!!
So…a private company/organization fired an employee because said employee’s views didn’t align with that of his employer. How is this outrageous?
Any man that would wear that particular combination of striped bowtie and shirt deserves to be fired for artistic reasons, regardless of how correct he is.
True science is now dead. It’s all about propaganda and personal biases. What’s happened to the Professor for diverging from the man-made global warming scare is exactly what has been happening for some time now to those scientists who believe in creationism or ID. It’s sad we can’t have a healthy debate on such topics without people acting stupid and childish.
“You are charged with preaching wrongful, pernicious, and misleading doctrine about anthopogenic global warming.”
It is actions like these that degrade AGW from science to pravda.
I don’t see the big deal. So the IPS doesn’t want Rossiter in the program anymore? So what? His beliefs no longer align with the project. His continuing with IPS would make as much sense as an atheist being a member of the Catholic Church.
When are the consensus lovers going to understand that consensus is irrelevant in science and it just takes one scientist to prove all the others wrong?
Not too long ago, for example, Aussie researchers Drs Barry Marshall and Robin Warren stood against the entire medical and pharmaceutical professions in trying to explain the real cause of peptic ulcers. They received a Nobel Prize for their ground breaking work while their ‘consensus of opponents’, ended up utterly humiliated and embarrassed.