Judith Curry comments. I will have much more to write about this in a few days. For now, I will say that I deeply regret that any scientist, particularly such a distinguished scientist as Bengsston, has had to put up with these attacks. This past week, we have seen numerous important and enlightening statements made by Bengtsson about the state of climate science and policy, and science and society is richer for this. We have also seen a disgraceful display of Climate McCarthyism by climate scientists, which has the potential to do as much harm to climate science as did the Climategate emails. And we have seen the GWPF handle this situation with maturity and dignity Judith Curry
I’ve written elsewhere that this is an own goal for the climate bullies. Bengsston is 79 years old. He has made his anti-alarmist views widely known and has resigned not recanted.
Now the fun begins as we try to hunt down the bullies. But even if that hunt is unsuccessful, the fact these anti-scientific creeps have resorted to intimidating an elderly, distinguished, scientist tells us just how worried they are that the science is collapsing and with it the loony policy prescriptions.
Jay Currie 
I have lamented for over a decade about my observations of the absolute path of damage stern behind this AGW movement. Its not just the resulting poor policies or lost credibility to the academic and scientific community, but real people who have been harmed.
Many of them simply meant to raise the level of debate or question the basic scientific thinking with good intent, yet careers were torched and lifelong ambitions sacrificed to the agenda driven AGW cult. What a terrible shame and injustice…
I respect those who spoke out early or often and paid a high price for their integrity. Noble soldiers and heroes in the war against the greatest scam ever concocted – “Man-made” global warming.
Bengsston is a true skeptic scientist – in other words, he shows the proper scepticism that – we skeptics were taught as “science” when at school and university.
But that is not what “science” means now. Now it’s a social construct – a group identity. It isn’t a standard a methodology – any person can get to be a scientist irrespective of even knowing what the scientific method is, let alone adhering to it – simply by getting a paper published and then getting the grant bodies and university to endorse them as “a scientist”.
So, in this topsy turvy world someone like Salby – a true skeptic scientist – isn’t deemed a “scientist” because he’s no longer socially acceptable within group calling itself “science”.
It is not about methodology, not about facts, it is about whether or not you are part of the “in-crowd” of “science”.
Bengsston made the great mistake of confusing [skeptic] science with modern [consensus] science. He thought that as a “scientist” being properly skeptical, that he would be respected for proper skeptical science irrespective of which group he joined – but when you leave the consensus science group – you are deemed to be no longer a “scientist”, irrespective of how good a [skeptic] scientist you are.