Skip to content

Climate Bullies Attempt To Oust Trump Supporter From Natural History Museum

January 29, 2018
tags:

By Paul Homewood

 

 

The climate bully boys are at it again.

 

From the NYT:

 image

Rebekah Mercer, a supporter of President Trump and an influential donor to conservative causes — including groups that deny climate science — is under renewed pressure to step down from the board of New York City’s most prominent science museum, the American Museum of Natural History.

This week, more than 200 scientists and other academics who have advocated policy action on climate change endorsed an open letter that calls on the museum to remove Ms. Mercer from its board and “end ties to anti-science propagandists and funders of climate science misinformation.”

Among those who signed the letter, which warned of “a loss of public trust,” were Michael E. Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, and Katharine Hayhoe, director of the Climate Science Center at Texas Tech University.

“The museum deeply respects the work and views of scientists — both those who work as colleagues at the museum and those from the broader scientific community,” the museum said in a statement to The New York Times. “We also respect and understand scientists’ role in society, including adding their voices to political debates that relate to scientific issues.

“The museum itself, however, does not make appointment decisions concerning staff or trustees based on political views,” the statement continued. “The museum has long maintained that its funders do not shape its curatorial decisions.”

Read the full article here. 

 

So, what was the object of the climate mafia’s hysteria?

It all stemmed from this Twitter post, by a nonentity called Jonah Busch, who is apparently an environmental economist, whatever one of those is:

image

https://twitter.com/jonahbusch/status/949774167276220416

 

That prompted this letter from 182 “scientists”:

The American Museum of Natural History in New York (AMNH) is a treasured and influential institution. Museums must be protected as sites that build understanding, help the public make meaning, and serve the common good. We are concerned that the vital role of science education institutions will be eroded by a loss of public trust if museums are associated with individuals and organizations known for rejecting climate science, opposing environmental regulation and clean energy initiatives, and blocking efforts to reduce pollutants and greenhouse gases.

Rebekah Mercer and the Mercer Family Foundation, political kingmakers and the financiers behind Breitbart News, are major funders of climate science denial projects such as the Heartland Institute, where they have donated nearly $6 million since 2008. The Mercer Family Foundation is also a top donor to the C02 Coalition and the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, institutions that assert that an increase in C02 emissions from fossil fuels will be a great benefit to plant and animal life on Earth. The renewed attention to Mercer Family Foundation chair Rebekah Mercer, who sits on the AMNH Board of Trustees (since 2013), spurs us to reissue a statement that scientists first co-signed in 2015:

“When some of the biggest contributors to climate change and funders of misinformation on climate science sponsor exhibitions in museums of science and natural history, they undermine public confidence in the validity of the institutions responsible for transmitting scientific knowledge.”

Since that original letter, we have seen welcome changes as many museums updated their policies related to fossil fuel financial interests; the American Museum of Natural History increased its focus on climate change concerns and global sustainability in its investments and business plans. But given the prior AMNH funding and board membership associated with Exxon Corporation and David Koch, the prominence of Rebekah Mercer and the Mercer Family Foundation as current AMNH donors and on the Board of Trustees can prompt skepticism and hunts for signs of corruption, no matter the quality of the museum priorities and exhibits overall.

Last week thousands of people shared a Twitter comment by environmental economist Jonah Busch, PhD, who pointed out misleading information on climate science in an Exxon-funded exhibit at the American Museum of Natural History. To its credit, the AMNH’s response was swift: it committed to updating the outdated information to reflect the best available science. But the initial online public anger showed that trust in the museum is undermined by the museum’s association with climate science opponents.

The most important asset any museum has is its credibility. This can be damaged by ties to donors and board members who are publicly known for investing in climate science obfuscation and opposing environmental solutions.

We ask the American Museum of Natural History, and all public science museums, to end ties to anti-science propagandists and funders of climate science misinformation, and to have Rebekah Mercer leave the American Museum of Natural History Board of Trustees

http://thenaturalhistorymuseum.org/open-letter-from-scientists-to-the-american-museum-of-natural-history/

The implication is that Rebekah Mercer, and apparently Exxon, was responsible for writing up this particular exhibit.

But there is one slight problem. Although Mercer did not take up her role with the museum till 2013, the exhibit has been in place since at least 2006, as evidenced by this blog about a visit to New York in May 2006:

image

http://www.freecolorado.com/2006/05/nyc.html

The visit included a trip to the AMNH, where this picture was taken:

 

 

In other words, the same display as now.

Indeed, as Busch himself reveals, the display probably dates back to 1994, when Exxon funded the renovation of the Fossil Halls. Naturally, our mentally challenged environmental economist blames Exxon for spreading “erroneous texts”:

 

image

 

 

The whole idea that museums would allow their work to be corrupted in this way is patently absurd.

But, more to the point, the display is a perfectly factual account of our understanding of ice ages.

 

Busch dredges up one solitary paper, which claims that AGW will delay the next ice age by 100,000 years (which if true will be a huge boon for mankind!), as if to disprove the museum’s display.

 

image

 

 

But Busch’s real objection is that knowledge of ice ages will stop people from worrying about global warming.

 

 image

 

I presume then that he wants to stop schools from teaching kids about ice ages, ban all books in libraries and shut all museums who dare to display such sacrilegious heresy against the teachings of the Church of Climatology!

 

This attempt by a gang of self appointed, second rate scientists to exclude people from jobs with public bodies, or indeed any sort of association at all, simply because of their politics, is extremely dangerous.

It is the sort of behaviour one would normally associate with communist and fascist juntas, and needs to be fought tooth and nail.

Advertisements
34 Comments
  1. Broadlands permalink
    January 29, 2018 2:21 pm

    Ouch! So much ideology, so much misinformation…and from scientists???

    Climate Change axioms….

    The more the case for man-made climate change unravels, the more shrill its supporters become.

    The greater the dependence on government grants, the more dire the climate change predictions.

    The homogenization or the ‘adjusting’ of data is only acceptable if it supports the case for global warming.

    The more the computer projections fail to materialize, the more comfortable supporters are in the certainty of climate change predictions.

    Expect more?

    • Chris Lynch permalink
      January 29, 2018 7:03 pm

      At the end when everything else is stripped away you can see what really motivates far too many on the left – hatred and resentment.

    • January 30, 2018 2:37 am

      No, not from scientists. From people who claim to be scientists but are actually political activists that care nothing whatsoever about science.

  2. Nigel S permalink
    January 29, 2018 2:38 pm

    ‘If all they see is this panel ..’ shows the level of delusion. Touching that he is so concerned about worried children but no doubt sees ‘No Pressure’ as amusing satire. At least he wasn’t complaining about the whale exhibit.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/climate-change-film-blows-up-in-richard-curtiss-face-2096801.html

  3. Curious George permalink
    January 29, 2018 3:09 pm

    Standard tactics: Shoot the messenger.

  4. Crustacean permalink
    January 29, 2018 3:43 pm

    All this is hauntingly suggestive of “A History of Near Misses” in the January 27-28 weekend Wall Street Journal:

    “A cousin married a secret policeman who became one of the most enthusiastic architects of Stalin’s terror, before himself falling victim to it.”

    The warmunists had best be careful what they wish for.

  5. Zangeres onder bruggen permalink
    January 29, 2018 3:55 pm

    Continued evidence for the persistence of an idea that money can be tainted even though donated with no strings attached. Magnificent science/nature programmes and exhibits sponsored in the past by the likes of Shell and BP no longer possible. Who benefits from this heresy?

  6. Dr K.A. Rodgers permalink
    January 29, 2018 4:02 pm

    Witch-hunting 101

  7. ralfellis permalink
    January 29, 2018 4:25 pm

    And they quote Ganopolski’s infantile paper, which suggests that glaciogenic dust assisted interglacial warming. Except, of course, that the LGM dust came from the Gobi. So Ganopolski’s paper is not only a model guestimate, it is utterly wrong.

    In reality, it is LOW CO2 that causes warming – by causing CO2 deserts, and therfore increased dust, and therefore lower ice sheet albedo, and increased insolation absorption, and rapid melting.

    Ice Age Modulation via Dust and Albedo.
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674987116300305

    Ralph

    • dave permalink
      January 29, 2018 4:39 pm

      McCarthyites, and complete fools! Voters are thereby reminded why they voted for Trump – and why they should do it again!

      • February 1, 2018 1:11 pm

        And why we WILL vote for Trump again.

        His State of the Union address to the Joint Session of Congress on Tuesday evening was very illustrative. One–it was truly the first State of the Union in a long time where the actual state was enumerated. The accomplishments were staggering in their scope. Secondly–it was illustrative of what the left DID NOT LIKE. They did not like black unemployment being the lowest ever, people getting a tax break, ISIS being defeated, business roaring back,……. The Democrats put on quite the show which was seen by millions.

  8. Athelstan permalink
    January 29, 2018 5:03 pm

    Two lasses robin and somini, not quite generation no science, but know full well that the are seeking triumphal nodding dog acknowledgement from……….. ‘generation no science’. It therefore follows that, in the NYT gullible readers section, you can tell ’em aught which springs to mind and not least enjoy the ride, sly calumny is the left’s, a cowards tool.
    Two NYT lasses, who are, virtue signallers and climate ignorant but hey the NYT is the equivalent of ‘our’ grauniad, thus they’ll print any old ****e.

    Jonah bumpf and who gives a tinker’s what he thinks?

    Mind you, one has to snigger, relying on ‘names’………. experts……….. say so, explodes this stout party out of the water, and all subversives depth charged:

    Among those who signed the letter, which warned of “a loss of public trust,” were Michael E. Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, and Katharine Hayhoe, director of the Climate Science Center at Texas Tech University.

    Among those who signed the letter, which warned of “a loss of public trust,”

    Get that, and irony bypass confirmation.

    Convinced? nope – me neither. Dear hearts, creative statistical manoeuvrers, Michael and Katherine between them couldn’t run a bath.

    A word to the unwise, Mann better watch out, if the Donald turns his steely stare onto Penn State climastrology and propaganda dept, toasted ex ‘expert’, promulgator without a seat he will be.

    • Broadlands permalink
      January 29, 2018 5:28 pm

      Penn State? They exonerated Michael Mann. Why? Because his six million dollar tax-payer funding for his “stop the global warming” research was at risk. And if that disappeared, guess what? So would their substantial amount of “overhead” funding disappear. Their self-appointed exoneration was never in doubt. Too costly in every respect?

      • February 1, 2018 1:06 pm

        That lucrative “overhead” is why keeps highly overpaid, extremely bloated administrations in business. If you don’t bring in gobs of grant monies, you might find your department obliterated and the space given to those who do.

  9. Phoenix44 permalink
    January 29, 2018 5:52 pm

    So discussing one possible bad things is “anti-science” because it might make people think about that farther than climate change? What sort of imbecile makes such an obviously stupid claim as that?

    I’m quite capable f worrying about more than one thing at a time (good thing too, I have two children).

    Is this moron not?

  10. January 29, 2018 6:00 pm

    “Among those who signed the letter, which warned of “a loss of public trust,” were Michael E. Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University,”

    “a loss of public trust,” that’s really good coming from Michael E. Mann – Disgraceful *professor* of lying, cheating & fraud.

    * Professor –
    A person who affirms a faith in or allegiance to something.
    ‘The professors of true religion’ – Oxford:

    One that professes, avows, or declares. – Webster:

    A person who professes his or her sentiments, beliefs, etc. – Dictionary.com: )

  11. victor hanby permalink
    January 29, 2018 6:47 pm

    ‘profess’ – to claim, often wrongly, to know.

  12. JerryC permalink
    January 29, 2018 7:04 pm

    I’m shocked. That AMNH didn’t immediately cave to their demands.

  13. mwhite permalink
    January 29, 2018 7:28 pm

    Totally OT but thought it might be of interest. Heard about a road traffic accident on the M6, one of the cars was a Hybrid. The Police I’m told would not touch it until it was declared safe.

    http://www.electrocuted.com/2016/11/28/electrocution-hazards-electric-cars/

    “First Responders And Rescue Personnel Risk Electrocution

    There has been much concern for the risks to emergency personnel posed by electric vehicles. These first responders necessarily have to interact with electric cars involved in accidents where exposed cables pose a risk for electrocution, as well as ruptured battery packs creating the potential for explosion and fires, and chemical burns.”

    Not something I’d thought about.

    • Gerry, England permalink
      January 30, 2018 2:00 pm

      Seeing how the supercar that Hamster crashed on Grand Tour went up in flames I can’t say i blame them from staying clear. The fire brigade are not keen on attending house fires where they have solar panels on the roof during the day as they can’t be turned off. Perhaps they could wait until nightfall?

  14. Bitter@twisted permalink
    January 29, 2018 10:47 pm

    If Mann and Hayhoe signed it it is bound to be totally wrong.

  15. gallopingcamel permalink
    January 30, 2018 12:56 am

    I love Archer & Ganopolsky:
    “A movable trigger: Fossil fuel CO2 and the onset of the next glaciation. David Archer and Andrey Ganopolski……..Published in G3 Geochemistry Geophysics Geosystems Research Letter, 5 May 2005

    Last year David Archer published “The Long Thaw”.

    Why do I love these guys? Just imagine that they are right………..it would our duty to mankind to increase our carbon footprint to the greatest extent possible. We would be saving the planet from the next glaciation that will reduce the flora and fauna on this planet by at least 90%. What a noble cause! My dream was to buy the latest Gulfstream executive jet but ended up buying a new SUV instead. What are you going to do to increase the [CO2] in the atmosphere?

    Tou will be saving the USA from the return of the Laurentide ice sheet that used to be 5,000 feet thick where New York stands today.

    It is a damn shame that these imbeciles (A&G) are wrong. Too bad that temperature controls [CO2] rather than the reverse. To understand “Ice Ages” switch the research money being wasted on CO2 to:
    —Milankovitch cycles
    —Solar wind
    —Cosmic rays that vary as the sun moves relative to the spiral arms of our galaxy
    —Oscillations of the solar core driven by the major planets

    • Broadlands permalink
      January 30, 2018 1:25 am

      Camel.. “…..it would [be] our duty to mankind to increase our carbon footprint to the greatest extent possible. We would be saving the planet from the next glaciation.”

      We already wanted to try that… remember the Global Cooling frenzy? Here’s what was said at that time:

      Lowell Ponte, 1976 THE COOLING, p. 237:

      “We simply cannot afford to gamble against this possibility by ignoring it. We cannot risk inaction. Those scientists who say we should ignore the evidence and the theories suggesting Earth is entering a period of climatic instability are acting irresponsibly. The indications that our climate can soon change for the worse are too strong to be reasonably ignored.”

      Sounds familiar? Right string wrong yo-yo?

  16. January 30, 2018 7:03 am

    WUWT has a story about the politics of grant money and the corruption of science by bullies:
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/01/29/the-power-of-grant-money-on-display-at-james-cook-university/

    • February 1, 2018 1:03 pm

      National Science Foundation–the source of funds for research, especially botany, has had an extremely biased policy for decades. If you do not sing from the page, you are denied funding. SO, unless your application shows you will make the proper “findings”, nuts to you.

  17. dave permalink
    January 30, 2018 8:20 am

    The censors are neurotically desperate to stop kids suddenly putting two and two together.

    ” ‘Why, ‘warmism’s’ central dogma implies we are actually SAVING the planet from the catastrophe of a return of the ice!”

    Trying, not only to control information but, to get inside heads and kill thought processes. Puerile, idiotic, doomed to failure, but typical of small but crafty minds. Thus Caesar in William Shakespeare,

    “He thinks too much. Such men are dangerous!”

  18. chris moffatt permalink
    January 31, 2018 8:19 pm

    “The whole idea that museums would allow their work to be corrupted in this way is patently absurd.” It is to normal people. But people like Mann and Kayhoe and their ilk allow their own work to be corrupted by monetary considerations and hence assume that everyone is as they are.

    BTW can we stop referring to Mann as a scientist now? he is clearly a mere political activist (with an annoyingly fussy little beard).

  19. February 1, 2018 9:41 am

    Reblogged this on WeatherAction News and commented:
    I’m far more concerned about the factual inaccuracies I see at the climate change exhibitions in museums – which are based on computer model simulations that really don’t age well. Hopefully in my lifetime I’ll see climate change displays next to those of mediaeval medical quackery.

  20. February 1, 2018 1:00 pm

    Time, once again, for a quote from P.J. O’Rourke on liberalism to sum up this situation:

    “At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child — miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and useless. Liberalism is a philosophy of sniveling brats.”

  21. Sharpshooter permalink
    February 1, 2018 2:46 pm

    These garbage piles are only “liberal” in an Orwellian use of the word. “Liberal” derives from the word liberty; these tribalist jackbooted thugs are reactionary totalitarians.

    • LouMaytrees permalink
      February 7, 2018 1:46 am

      Liberal comes from the latin liberalis which means ‘free’, not from the word liberty, which is from old French liberte or latin libertatem and is political in origin. Liberal does not derive from the word liberty.

  22. February 5, 2018 4:38 pm

    As those bent on obfuscating climate science are still parroting memes from 2006, like’ the earth is cooling’ it is hardly surprising that they should feign indignation when a deacde old museum label gets updated to refect the state of the science it serves to convey.

    https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2017/06/the-truth-that-sets-men-free-is-seldom.html

Trackbacks

  1. Delingpole: Climate Bully Mob Tries to Oust Trump Supporter from Natural History Museum | Real Patriot News
  2. (THIS IS WHY THEY WANT YOUR GUNS AMERICA) – Delingpole: Climate Bully Mob Tries to Oust Trump Supporter from Natural History Museum | tomfernandez28's Blog

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: