Climate Statistics Prof. Dr. Caleb S. Rossiter Fallout: Academics Worldwide Condemn ‘Dark Age’ Intellect Of Institute For Policy Studies

Caleb S. Rossiter Fallout: Academics Worldwide Condemn “Dark Age” Intellect Of Institute For Policy Studies

http://notrickszone.com/2014/06/15/caleb-s-rossiter-fallout-academics-worldwide-condemn-dark-age-intellect-of-institute-for-policy-studies/

There’s plenty of controversy swirling around the fellowship termination of Caleb S. Rossiter, adjunct professor, Department of Mathematics and Statistics and School of International Service, American University. Read the background here at Climate Depot.
The stated mission of the IPS is to put “ideas into action for peace, justice, and the environment“. These are noble aims that can be achieved only by finding the best solutions, solutions that can be reached only through open, honest discussion.
I was interested in getting reaction from other leading scientists, journalists and academics on the matter and so I sent e-mails asking them to comment. Much to my satisfaction, most of them replied. Their comments on the Rossiter fellowship termination follow:
Willie Soon (USA)
Professor of Astrophysics
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
“For any objective reader and citizen of the world, this sort of bullying ought to inform everyone that science and its practice are now no longer free and willing. In fact, we are constantly being terrorized and threatened by the research funding gravy trains and large resources needed for science to progress and prosper. This is a scientific dark age we are living in because no more scientists of Professor Rossiter’s caliber are speaking out and telling the whole truth on any matters scientific. The idea of atmospheric CO2 being the one sure control knob for climate and future disasters is profoundly wrong – not only on scientific grounds but also on the moral and ethical grounds that Professor Rossiter’s op-ed in WSJ has exemplified. Thank God that the United Nations and various scientific institutions will not be able to silence us because we will never let them do that.”
Lennart Bengtsson (Sweden)
Professor of Meteorology, climate scientist
“As I myself have experienced recently, the ceiling of tolerance in climate change has become depressingly low, I might say almost non-existent. This is most worrisome for the health of science. I find Prof. Rossiter’s comments highly reasonable and it is obvious that without a healthy economical development of Africa along the lines we have seen in China, there is neither much hope for the people of Africa nor is there much hope that humankind will ultimately solve its environmental problems. The directors of the Institute for Policy Studies should ask themselves how life in Europe and United States …

Obama and the abusive analogy: ‘Someone who was trying to deal with an existential crisis would have been moving heaven and earth to unite people rather than divide them’

Obama and the abusive analogy

http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2014/6/15/obama-and-the-abusive-analogy.html

Chapter One of How to Win Every Argument, Madsen Pirie’s systematic survey of the use and abuse of logical fallacies, is on the abusive analogy. This is a wonderful book for those seeking to enhance their rhetorical skills through underhand means, but I sense that President Obama is one man who could have written the book himself. This conclusion is based on his speech to an audience of college graduates in California during which he discussed dissenting views on climate change:

“It’s pretty rare that you’ll encounter somebody who says the problem you’re trying to solve simply doesn’t exist. When President Kennedy set us on a course to the moon, there were a number of people who made a serious case that it wouldn’t be worth it,” he continued.
“But nobody ignored the science. I don’t remember anybody saying the moon wasn’t there or that it was made of cheese,” Obama said.

I would have thought that someone who was trying to deal with an existential crisis would have been moving heaven and earth to unite people rather than divide them. Using fallacy – and abusive fallacy to boot – makes him look more like someone who sees global warming as a useful wedge issue than someone who really thinks he is trying to save the planet.…