How to destroy the climate debate
Erik Bye
November 15, 2025
The Inspiration
This is a translation of one of my earlier Norwegian articles, with the purpose to illuminate the destructive behaviour of climate researchers in Norway: https://fakta360.no/2024/04/rasmus-benestad-odelegger-klimadebatten/
The original article may be found in English, by tapping theAmerican flag on the front page. This version is modified for this presentation, due to the international audience.
The inspiration to write this Essay comes from the spectacular situation that Rasmus Benestad, a Norwegian climate researcher, an IPCC-believer, sent me a threatening email. He wondered if he was subjected to: defamation, libels, harassment or just bad manners? I will return to this threat case below.
When Benestad draws those cards, we should listen carefully. If there is one thing he knows and is very good at, it is harassment in connection with the climate debate. He has never held back from making strongly harassing statements. That is why the threatening email was more surprising than frightening. He has no power to insult; he is not in a situation where he can establish a legal case. But if he does his worst, it will be a bit uncomfortable, it is an abuse of other people's time, and he is creating an exceptionally bad debate climate.
The journalist
An example of Benestad's intolerable behavior in written form is his regular attacks on Pål Brekke (a Norwegian astronomer) in Journalisten, (a Norwegian Magazine for Journalists), in 2007. Benestad was born in 1968.
My actual comments here are marked: EB.
At that time, he wrote an article in Journalisten, with the title:
"Where is the sharp journalism?"
Here he launches into a veritable attack on solar scientist Pål Brekke. I will highlight quotes from the article to illustrate the kind of mode Benedtad operates in:
1. The matter concerns astronomers and solar scientists, and he has a "thorn in the side" of some scientists:
«They want more media attention. So, let them have it. They probably don't want a critical eye. But there is hardly anyone in the media world who has realized that they are throwing stones in a glass house, so there is no danger. The journalists don't see that. Because one of the points of these scientists is that Knut Jørgen Rød Ødegård (a Norwegian astronomer) has neglected to refer the journalists to the real experts. That is what Pål Brekke says, who basks in the media spotlight when the question of climate change comes up. »
EB: The scientists are throwing stones in glass houses, but it is obvious that only Benestad understands that. This can be seen as a sharp academic input and should be tolerated. It is worse when he attacks the man and not the ball.
He claims that: "Pål Brekke basks in the media spotlight when questions about climate change arise."
Is it problematic for Benestad that someone enjoys what they discuss? But he does not have pleasant intentions with the characterization. This is pure harassment of the opponent.
2. In the next paragraph, his comments bear the hallmarks of harassment, with a stilted feeling. "Old buddies", a facile claim about "incorrect views on climate", "completely behind the times", which is rounded off with "The studies they refer to are often based on faulty logic, selective use of references, misunderstandings, lack
of overview, and/or unsuitable pseudo-statistical methods. But don't tell them that, because then they'll get angry."
EB: This is pure harassment, and Benestad of course has no basis for any of what he says.
3. If Benestad wants to talk people down, he does it with hints, like here: "It is also probably just a coincidence that Brekke or Solheim (a Norwegian Professor Emeritus in astrophysics) appear in the same TV studio as Frp politicians and that they use the same arguments. That probably also happens with welders."
EB: I wonder what he wants with this, other than personal attacks and professional harassment.
4. Benestad continues his tirade: "But wait! Maybe there is a network? There is a picture on the internet that proves that Brekke is associating with well-known climate skeptics – and most likely lobbyists – in the US and in Norway. Yes, there is a website called "Klimareistene" that connects several of the actors and which seems to have support from Hans Henrik Ramm (known from the oil industry). These have significant influence, as they help legitimize both Frp and increased oil extraction." (Frp is a Norwegian political party: The Progress Party.)
EB: This is a personal attack at the absolute lowest level, and there is something angsty in his description of the Climate Realists.
5. It seems like something is being blocked here, he continues: "The most comical thing is that the journalists don't seem to have understood anything at all. This year alone, in my opinion, both the magazine Forskning and forskning.no, as well as television, have positioned themselves as microphone stands for Brekke & co. Basically, courses in statistical analysis should have been mandatory in journalist training - then they themselves could have dissected some of the untenable claims and seen that they are quite rotten."
EB: In addition to his disparaging remarks about other researchers, he is quite confident in his own skills. For those of us who have followed Benestad for a while, we have noticed that his competence in statistics can really be questioned. I have experienced that he supports the use of interpolations between measurement points, to increase the amount of "quality data". Here it seems that he overlooks that this type of data is not independent observations. In a case where he emphasized that there was a 50% chance of an outcome, he thought that I was getting hung up on details when I pointed out that there was an equal probability of the opposite outcome.
Another example is the lack of knowledge of the ENSO index ONI, which probably took the cake. This is an index that is well known and widely used to characterize, for example, El Niño activity. He did not know about this index. Of course, a bit surprising now that he has a doctorate in El Niño.
6. One of the strongest insults comes here: "This fall, Brekke presented speculations about how the sun could be the cause of significant global climate change to a gathering of prominent guests at Transatlantic Week 2008, despite the fact that the scientific consensus is of a different opinion. If you ask me, he has deceived them in the same way that the cuckoo deceives the mother bird. You could also say that he is trying to lay eggs in other people's nests: At the same time as he demands attention for himself, he steals it from the real climate experts. Rumor has it that he is going to New York Polar Week in February. It will be interesting to hear whether he continues to talk about climate or whether he leaves the topic to the real experts. Both of these events are apparently organized by the Norwegian embassy."
EB: The way Benestad characterizes Brekke's professional position reveals his lack of knowledge. It testifies to a completely unscientific approach to the field, when Benestad builds on "consensus". It is difficult to appear much more unscientific. "Leading behind the scenes", "laying eggs in other people's nests", "stealing attention from climate experts". It is unlikely that anything more revealing can be said, and Benestad is left “holding the bag”! The envy shines through Benestad's statements, he also spreads his suspicions into the embassy.
7. In conclusion, Benestad takes it completely over the top, directed at Brekke: "I'm a little surprised how an amateur can get so much limelight."
EB: This must be based on a feeling or experience of inferiority on Benestad's part. But, without any insulting force, one can only shake one's head and shrug one's shoulders at this statement. I think climate scientists are alone in having such an attitude towards researchers within the same field, with a different scientific standpoint.
The Sayings of Rasmus Rasmus Benestad is widely known for his statements. To the extent statistician Steve McIntyre has collected some of the statements from "Rasmus":
The Sayings of "Rasmus"
https://climateaudit.org/2005/12/20/the-sayings-of-rasmus/
From: The Norwegin Newspaper «Dagsavisen New Opinions»
The next example of harassment from Rasmus Benestad is even more extreme, with the article entitled:
"The climate debate's ‘short straw’creates a dilemma." (In Norwegian)
https://www.dagsavisen.no/kultur/klimadebattens-svarte-per-skaper-etdilemma/8143934
i. It is recognized as a problem by Benestad that three Norwegians scientists conclude contrary to «all other reports».
ii. He compares the conclusions with a ridiculous picture: The bubbles in hot water cannot be associated with the warming, due to the continuity in the warming, while
the bubbles are discrete, disappear and are consecutively followed by other bubbles. This is an obvious ridiculous evaluation of the Science performed.
iii. He compares the process of denying man-made climate change, as if the emission of CO2 to the atmosphere, after being absorbed by the ocean, as a way of whitewashing money to remove the criminal factor.
Although the model is quite hopeless and without any impact, it is another unscientific evaluation of the Science performed.
iv. He realizes that these scientific assumptions are contrary to the established knowledge. But, instead of discussing their conclusions, he is questioning whether scientists should be considered seriously. This is not a scientific attitude, it is harassment.
v. He has no limitations in his attack. He is asking if the Universities should act towards the scientists, due to their scientific conclusions? This is not a system based on a free, open debate, suggested by Benestad. This is a social system we do not feel comfortable with.
vi. He even extended this to the question: Is this a failure of the academic act of freedom? How to handle political or propagandistic activities.
In conclusion: This is a Condescending attitude to these highly qualified scientists.
This article contains so much gross harassment of Norwegian researchers that Benestad was reported by me to his employer, (The Norwegian Meteorological Institute) for gross harassment, defamation and harassing statements. What happened at the institute is not known, I heard nothing from his employer. However, Benestad counterattacked me, in this article:
“Less freedom of speech for government employees? (In Norwegian)
https://www.dagsavisen.no/kultur/mindre-ytringsfrihet-for-statsansatte/7423412
Here he claims the right to write whatever he wants in his free time. But once again Benestad is badly informed. The following passage is included in the Civil Service Act:
The Civil ServiceAct:
§ 14. Ordinary penalties.
1.Acivil servant who is not a judge 2 or an official who is not subject to another disciplinary authority by law, may be imposed a disciplinary penalty for:
a. Breach of duty or failure to fulfill duty
b. Improper conduct in or outside the service that damages the respect or trust necessary for the position.
2.As a disciplinary penalty, a civil servant or public servant may be given a written reprimand, or loss of seniority from one month to two years. An official may also be demoted to a lower position as a disciplinary measure, either permanently or for a limited period.
Since he brings this up as a defense, it is possible that neither the employer was aware of this legal section.And if, on the other hand, Benestad is making a bold argument here, contrary to the employer's understanding of the law, then yes, there are wild and lawless conditions at the institute. This regulation of the writing activity for a civil servant is in the next article in this history. Normally Benestad is active in responding. Now there was deafening silence.
The threats
In conclusion, I will describe «the threat case» against me, which he started with an email on January 4, 2024:
Hello.
I would like to inform you that I have contacted legal advice to check whether a reader post you have written is defamatory/libelous/harassing, or whether it simply shows a lack of public decency.:
" Benestad cannot comment on the future, neither on the weather nor the climate. All of this is unscientific scaremongering, in line with other doomsday prophecies. "
I will also send a copy to The Public Records Office (An Open Official Office).
Thank you
Rasmus E. Benestad
Nothing came out of this threat. However, it was widely reported, especially because he sent similar threats to other Norwegians, i.e. The Editor of Fakta360.no.
These were described in Derimot.no, Fakta360.no, and interviews on iNyheter.no, all being Norwegian Net Journals.
Furthermore, the website of the Norwegian Nature ConservationAssociation FAUNA, took up the issue. They gave full support to Benestad.
They had an article where they didn't even have coverage for the claims in the title: "Climate scientist: – subjected to control techniques, attacks and harassment."
This article is behind a paywall.
After repeated reminders, I finally received an answer from his employer:
Hello!
I refer to your e-mails to the institute on 29 January and 4 February.
You ask the institute three questions:
1. Does the management at the Met. inst. believe that Benestad has justification for his statements and that there is justification for his threats towards me?
2. Does the management believe that this is a reasonable way to argue?
3. Has this statement by Benestad been clarified with the management?
From what we understand, Benestad has received a large number of emails from you during 2023 and 2024, and he has spent a lot of time responding to you. You have also written about Benestad in reader posts. He feels that you have characterized him in ways that he experiences as a nuisance through emails and posts, and we understand that he experiences this as a burden. We also understand that he has consulted legal advice to get help clarifying what personal burden he must accept as a climate scientist. He has informed you of this, and that is neat of Benestad.
We have full confidence in Benestad as a climate scientist and in his professional judgment. As a climate scientist, he is free to participate in the public debate without any clarification from management, just like all our other scientists.
Kind regards,
Magne Velle Head of Communications at the Norwegian Meteorological Institute
Comments on the threat case:
The employer supports Benestad, but his threats have no basis in fact. I did not comment on the article in FAUNAto the employer, as I came quite well out of the whole case and the coverage.
Conclusion:
With the history of comments that Benestad has behind him, the threat case appears almost as curiosity. The fact that he would make threats against other people as well might indicate personal insecurity.