I came across a Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF) post called climate scientists shoot the messenger. That it’s from the Forum, rather than the Foundation, may be relevant. It discusses the recent Millar et al. paper (that I discussed here and here) and says
Journalists reported accurately what scientists have claimed: climate models had been running hot — because that’s what climate scientists had actually told the press, and there was nothing wrong with the headlines.
I would argue that this isn’t really the case, but that’s not what I was planning to discuss.
The GWPF starts with a screenshot from my blog, then discusses various other articles and then, towards the end, says
But perhaps the worst comment cam from the “And Then Theres Physics” blog:
There then follows another screenshot and a claim that
[w]hen scientists suggest it would be better to suppress research findings that do not support the cause of extremist climate communication we are in real trouble. No one who holds or promotes such a view can be called a scientist.
Okay, here’s the point. The comment was actually a comment on my blog, not something I had said, or even endorsed. The commenter (with all due respect to them) is not – as far as I’m aware – a climate scientist, a scientist, or even formally associated with, or representative of, the scientific community. Furthermore, I don’t think that they were suggesting suppressing research findings, but it’s not really my position to defend, or clarify, what they said.
It’s interesting, therefore, that the only example the GWPF could provide of a scientist supposedly suggesting that research be suppressed was not even a scientist. Maybe that’s because no scientists have suggested any such thing. Maybe what’s more ironic is that in an article claiming that nothing was misrepresented, they appear to have misrepresented one of their supposed examples. I would be more surprised, if this wasn’t pretty much what I expect from the GWPF.