I remember a time when skeptical questioning was regarded as the essence of scientific inquiry. No longer, thanks in large part to the billions of dollars in annual funding that go to “scientists” who push the global warming agenda.  How else to interpret the extraordinary pressures brought to bear on a scientist who turned skeptical towards the prophets of doom? The UK Daily Mail reports:

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. 

Professor Lennart Bengtsson, 79, a leading academic from the University of Reading, left the high-profile Global Warming Policy Foundation as a result of the threats, which he described as 'virtually unbearable'.

The group was set up by former Tory Chancellor Lord Lawson and are sceptical about radical policy changes aimed at combating global warming. 

The Swedish climatologist, who has published more than 200 papers, said he received hundreds of emails from colleagues criticising his decision to switch to the organisation. 

His 'defection' was described as the biggest switch from the pro-climate change lobby to the sceptic camp to date.

He was also abused on science blogs, with one describing the people who condemned him as 'respectable' and that his actions amounted to 'silliness'. 

Another described him as a 'crybaby'. 

However, the main pressure came from the US, where a government employee refused to be a co-author on a paper because of his links to the controversial group. (snip)

'But what made me the most upset was when a colleague from the US resigned as co-author of a paper, simply because I was involved.

'I thought joining the organisation would provide a platform for me to bring more common sense into the global climate change debate. (snip)

In his resignation letter, published on the think-tank's website, he wrote: 'If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. 

'I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expecting such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. 

'Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc.

'I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy.’

This sort of pressure to conform to groupthink is an implicit admission of the weakness of Anthropogenic Global Warming Theory. Real science welcomes skepticism as the engine of progress.