UK Times headline tomorrow: Scientists in cover-up of ‘damaging’ climate view – full article

Bengtsson_frontPageUh oh, another “climategate” like moment is upon us as the law of unintended consequences kicks in. As Dr. Roger Pielke put it:

Appears that Bengtsson can play hardball too.

Plus there is an editorial by Dr. Matt Ridley saying “This bullying of climate sceptics must end“. Here is the front page of The Times for Friday May 16th, a link to the article follows.

Bengtsson_frontPage

Here is the full article:

Scientists in cover-up of ‘damaging’ climate view

Research which heaped doubt on the rate of global warming was deliberately suppressed by scientists because it was “less than helpful” to their cause, it was claimed last night.

In an echo of the infamous “Climategate” scandal at the University of East Anglia, one of the world’s top academic journals rejected the work of five experts after a reviewer privately denounced it as “harmful”.

Full article at: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/science/article4091344.ece

Ridley’s essay:

This bullying of climate-science sceptics must end

When did demonising your opponents become so acceptable?

Lennart Bengtsson is about as distinguished as climate scientists get. His decision two weeks ago to join the academic advisory board (on which I also sit, unremunerated) of Nigel Lawson’s Global Warming Policy Foundation was greeted with fury by many fellow climate scientists. Now in a McCarthyite move — his analogy — they have bullied him into resigning by refusing to collaborate with him unless he leaves.

Full article: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/thunderer/article4091200.ece

141 thoughts on “UK Times headline tomorrow: Scientists in cover-up of ‘damaging’ climate view – full article

  1. CACAnuts have overplayed their hand.

    A mixed metaphor if ever there were one, but you get my drift.

    This is what happens when academic pseudo-scientists isolate themselves in an ivory tower echo chamber.

    Welcome to the real world, vast CACA-wingnut conspirators!

  2. Frustrating for the moment anyway, as can’t read either the full essay or the full article. Don’t know much about The Times, but I know it’s a major newspaper in U.K. and I think not particularly conservative in outlook. If that’s true, this could turn out to be a spectacular own goal by the establishment climateers….

    Interesting (to say the least) to see how this plays out….

  3. First it was Delingpole. Then the Spectator. Then the Daily Mail. Then The TImes. The important aspect is that this stuff is now entering the journalistic narrative, otherwise dominated by planet-burning deathwishes.

    When the floodgates will open, many journalists will suddenly do their coming out as climate skeptics. Just hang on, we aren’t too far from that date.

  4. I don’t know if there is going to be a human induced climate catastrophe, but I know there has been a catastrophic failure of climate science.

  5. I guess the emergency response team of CAGW proponents is well oiled. This from Scientific American, the CAGW co-opted former grand scientific journal:

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-cyber-bullying/

    No, they haven’t come to Bengsston’s rescue, they are talking about nasty emails received from den_iers by the likes of Gavin Schmidt, Trenberth and Australia’s Prof. Hamilton who, IIRC was the guy who said he had death threats and an investigation showed him to have invented them.

  6. PS. They even had the cock to call it McCarthyite communication!!. The difference here is instead of emails from nutters, Bengsston is getting it from established CAGW climate scientists. They aren’t just being nasty in word, they are threatening career-ending action.

  7. Disgusting. I have my popcorn ready though. Should be some great commentary tomorrow…

  8. Pokerguy : “Don’t know much about The Times, but I know it’s a major newspaper in U.K. and I think not particularly conservative in outlook

    It is one of Rupert Murdoch’s. That is enough to define its policy.

  9. @pokerguy

    The Times used to be the definitive newspaper. It was nicknamed the “the thunderer”. All other newspapers with “Times” in their names are named after it. (Hence, it is totally wrong to call it “The London Times”, as some ignorant writers do.).
    But, alas, it fell into the hands of Murdoch some years ago. The days when one’s butler announced “There are some reporters here, sir, and a gentleman from The Times” are long gone. One has to send the whole lot round to the tradesmen’s entrance now.

    My footman refuses to iron the pages and my butler holds it between finger and thumb, so I don’t read it now. (And I’m back in Australia, anyway.). When I did, it was pretty conservative, but not fanatically so.

  10. In the UK The Times is like the Washington Post or the New York Times. It goes national and is a conservative leaning newspaper. Many on the left regularly read it’s daily headlines though may not buy it. In the UK parliament it is one of the essential, daily reading requirements along with the other national newspapers.

  11. These are the end times for the Warmist ideology/religion, and they know it. Now is when the Warmanista nastiness will be at its’ height. They will stop at nothing. But, their nasty behavior is there for all to see, and damages their “cause” even further, setting it upon a death spiral.

  12. Research which heaped doubt on the rate of global warming was deliberately suppressed by scientists because it was “less than helpful” to their cause, it was claimed last night.

    In an echo of the infamous “Climategate” scandal at the University of East Anglia, one of the world’s top academic journals rejected the work of five experts after a reviewer privately denounced it as “harmful”

    “The unnamed scientist concluded: “Actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of ‘errors’ and worse from the climate sceptics media side.””

  13. Research which heaped doubt on the rate of global warming was deliberately suppressed by scientists because it was “less than helpful” to their cause, it was claimed last night.

    In an echo of the infamous “Climategate” scandal at the University of East Anglia, one of the world’s top academic journals rejected the work of five experts after a reviewer privately denounced it as “harmful”

    “The unnamed scientist concluded: “Actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of ‘errors’ and worse from the climate sceptics media side.””

  14. To the right of the Times headline you can see the Duke of Edinburgh. He, like his big eared son, is a Warmist of extreme caliber. The Duke once wished to come back like a virus to tackle over-population, forgetting that he has 4 in-breeds, even in Mexico they only have 2.32 per woman in 2010. As for Charles he has a LOT OF LAND and many palaces and mansions with a staff of dozens, each with their own fossil fueled car and the co2 footprint of the latest Godzilla film version.

    Never let these people get away with their anti-human hypocrisy.

  15. Jimbo says:
    May 15, 2014 at 5:13 pm

    The WaPo & especially the NYT are not “conservative-leaning”. That would be the Wall Street Journal, but even that periodical has been infested by the Warmunista Rot in its reportage if not its editorial page slant.

  16. Jimbo says:
    May 15, 2014 at 5:25 pm

    Which is why I’m a republican when it comes to your government, not that I have or ought to have a say in it.

    Maybe Big Ears’ kids will redeem the monarchy, but I’m not holding my breath.

  17. “Jimbo says:
    May 15, 2014 at 5:16 pm”

    Another case of two countries separated by a common language.
    In the US, it’s is a contraction of “it is” (and part of the great dessert “IT’S IT”…)
    In the UK, it’s is also a possesive pronoun…
    One might say that that’s just the way it is… (sorry)

    At least English doesn’t have gender to deal with, as French, German, and Spanish do…..

  18. “Actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of ‘errors’ and worse from the climate sceptics media side.”

    Reads like something out of Climategate, doesn’t it?

  19. Frustrated right now.

    At this moment in order to read either the Times article or the editorial it appears that I need to get a subscription. I ain’t gonna do that.

    John

  20. Demand to know who the reviewer was!

    Demand to know who oppressed this person to the point of personal liability!

    If this happened to your child, parents, or any loved one, you would be irate!

    It is time to put a stop to this extreme bias and bullying, period.

    Are there any attorneys out there that would be willing to support this movement of justice for all, not just some!

    Step up folks, and bring this defiant and deviant behavior to an end……….

  21. I think The Times running this article is a coup for skeptics.

    From my perspective, The Times is more middle of the road than conservative and if not owned by News Corp, then it wouldn’t be trashed as much by the moonbats. It has about twice the circulation of The Guardian, but only about 1/8th the circulation of either of the leading tabloids. This pattern has held true for decades, in spite of declining newspaper circulation across the board, so it isn’t clear that Murdock has hurt it any. I think of it as the newspaper of the ruling class, somewhat more reliable than the The New York Times or the Washington Post, less reliable than the Wall Street Journal. If either the NYT or WP began running articles skeptical of global warming, then the game would be over.

    The New York Times and the Washington Post are the newspapers of the urban elites in North America and only liberal or progressive in the sense that they promote the ideology of the urban elites (which is often actually reactionary and illiberal). NYT and WP are organs of the Democratic Party in the US, much the way the Fairfax papers and ABC are organs of the Labor Party and Green Party in Australia. The Times seems to switch allegiance between UK parties depending on who is running. Possibly their editors are more honest and less dogmatic, but I’d remain skeptical.

    [Full disclosure: My work was once favourably written up by the NYT and I subscribed to the WP for many years. I once contributed to material to The Times Educational Supplement for which I as paid a few hundred pounds, but I think that was after Murdock sold it off, and it isn’t the same as The Times anyway.]

  22. Taranto at Wall St. Journal weighs in:

    15 May: WSJ: Best of the Web Today: James Taranto: Scientific Authoritarians
    The case for skepticism about climate scientists
    Florida’s Sen. Marco Rubio came under attack this week for refusing to submit to scientific authority…
    Nonscientist Ruth Marcus, writing for the Washington Post, declared that Rubio’s words “undermine his other assertion,” namely “that he is prepared to be president.” Juliet Lapidos, also lacking in scientific expertise, went so far as to assert, in a New York Times blog post, that Rubio had “disqualified himself” from the presidency.
    Of all the silly things written on the subject of global warming, Marcus’s and Lapidos’s offerings are surely among the most recent. Apart from that they’re entirely typical of the genre of global-warmist opinion journalism, in which ignorant journalists taunt politicians for their ignorance but have no argument beyond an appeal to authority. Lapidos: “Does Mr. Rubio think scientists are lying? Or that they don’t know what they’re talking about? Either way, what leads him to believe that the ‘portrait’ of climate change offered by scientists is inaccurate?”
    Appeals to authority aren’t necessarily fallacious, except in the realm of formal deductive logic, where they entail adopting the unfounded premise that the authority is infallible…
    As Michael Gerson puts it in the Washington Post: “Our intuitions are useless here. The only possible answers come from science. And for non-scientists, this requires a modicum of trust in the scientific enterprise.”
    Do you see the subtle problem with Gerson’s formulation? The injunction have trust after tossing aside your intuition is at best a contradiction in terms, at worst a con.
    This columnist is probably as unqualified as Marcus or Lapidos to evaluate the scientific merits of global warmism. But because we distrust climate scientists, we’re with Rubio in being inclined to think it’s a bill of goods…
    Here, from National Review’s Patrick Brennan, is the latest reason to distrust the authority of “consensus” climate scientists:
    “On May 8, Lennart Bengtsson, a Swedish climate scientist and meteorologist, joined the advisory council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation” etc…
    London’s Daily Mail reports that Bengtsson “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.’ “…
    Bengtsson tells the Mail: “Some people like my views, other people don’t, that is the way when it comes to science.” That’s precisely the point. Science is a methodical process of open inquiry. Those who enforce orthodoxies and engage in name-calling aren’t doing science, even if they’re scientists.
    Gerson is correct in observing that a layman’s intuition is of little use in evaluating a scientific proposition. That requires intellect and expertise, and most laymen do not have the latter. But intuition is enough to distinguish an authoritarian from a real authority.

    http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303908804579564082072318084

    BBC has only this so far!

    15 May: BBC The Papers: Andy McFarlane: Climate change and statin scrutiny, health effects of web use and Prince Harry’s pub
    (TIMES FRONT COVER) Caption: Scientific studies are in the news. The Times says research casting doubt on the rate of global warming has been suppressed by scientists because it was “less than helpful” to their cause…

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-27435194

  23. Jeff says:
    May 15, 2014 at 5:34 pm
    “Jimbo says:
    May 15, 2014 at 5:16 pm”

    Another case of two countries separated by a common language.
    In the US, it’s is a contraction of “it is” (and part of the great dessert “IT’S IT”…)
    In the UK, it’s is also a possesive pronoun…
    One might say that that’s just the way it is… (sorry)

    “Its” is a possessive pronoun everywhere that English is written. Wayward apostrophes are not the sole preserve of British English writers, I see plenty of Americans (and Australians) inserting them inappropriately wherever possible. The British are however more prone to the malady because they had a spelling convention for years which inserted an apostrophe in the plural of (mostly) foreign words like Honda which ended in a vowel [hence “Honda’s”] which spread like influenza through the rest of the English language. It’s a failure of modern teaching methods perhaps: more time spent on AGW and environmentalism than correct spelling in the mother tongue.

  24. I remember before ClimateGate there was always loud scoffing at skeptics to the effect of “it’s ridiculous to suppose there’s a conspiracy of scientists on climate change, that’s just crazy” and then after we all read the emails in which top climate scientists conspired to suppress skeptical views you didn’t hear that one so much for a while.

    Now the old dodge is back with its new, improved 97% awesome twist. Now it doesn’t matter if they suppress skeptics, because we have scientific proof that virtually all scientists believe in the thing they can’t scientifically prove.

    Hunting season’s open. Remember folks, these guys have absolutely no qualms, doubts, or compunction because they believe deeply and passionately that they are on a holy mission from Allah — sorry, Gaia. And they are absolutely convinced that you, too, are morally required to abide by the holy tenets of their faith, on pain of professional and personal destruction, lawsuits, and public stoning.

    Oh wait, that last one is the other guys again. Sorry, getting harder to tell them apart.

  25. I tried to use Mike’s Times trick of googling the article title to bypass the paywall…no luck.

  26. “Wayward apostrophes are not the sole preserve of British English writers, I see plenty of Americans (and Australians) inserting them inappropriately wherever possible.”

    http://www.angryflower.com/aposter.html

    “The British are however more prone to the malady because they had a spelling convention for years which inserted an apostrophe in the plural of (mostly) foreign words like Honda which ended in a vowel [hence “Honda’s”]”

    This is now known as ‘the greengrocer’s apostrophe”. Since the convention was accepted in early 18C English, I’m pretty sure it was accepted in the US at that time as well.

    http://grammar.about.com/od/fh/g/Greengrocer-S-Apostrophe.htm

    http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/greengrocer's-apostrophe

    http://linguistics-research-digest.blogspot.com.au/2012/11/going-bananas-about-greengrocers.html

  27. “Now in a McCarthyite move — his analogy — they have bullied him into resigning by refusing to collaborate with him unless he leaves.”

    His analogy is inaccurate. Senator McCarthy had people imprisoned for their opinions. Calling someone names and refusing to co-author academic papers with them is hardly in the same league.

  28. p.g.sharrow says:
    May 15, 2014 at 8:31 pm

    If it is behind a paywall, it is just gossip. Not worthy of my attention. pg

    What sort of file type is “Not worthy of my attention. pg”?

  29. If Bengtsson is such a sceptic, why is he publishing papers like this:

    The climate of the Earth, like planetary climates in general, is broadly controlled by solar irradiation, planetary albedo and emissivity as well as its rotation rate and distribution of land (with its orography) and oceans. However, the majority of climate fluctuations that affect mankind are internal modes of the general circulation of the atmosphere and the oceans. Some of these modes, such as El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO), are quasi-regular and have some longer-term predictive skill; others like the Arctic and Antarctic Oscillation are chaotic and generally unpredictable beyond a few weeks. Studies using general circulation models indicate that internal processes dominate the regional climate and that some like ENSO events have even distinct global signatures. This is one of the reasons why it is so difficult to separate internal climate processes from external ones caused, for example, by changes in greenhouse gases and solar irradiation. However, the accumulation of the warmest seasons during the latest two decades is lending strong support to the forcing of the greenhouse gases. As models are getting more comprehensive, they show a gradually broader range of internal processes including those on longer time scales, challenging the interpretation of the causes of past and present climate events further.

    What is the climate system able to do ‘on its own’?
    By:Bengtsson, L
    TELLUS SERIES B-CHEMICAL AND PHYSICAL METEOROLOGY
    Volume: 65
    Article Number: 20189

    As far as I can see (and admittedly I only checked his 2013 publications) all his recent papers would be classed as “supporting AGW” in an infamous survey, though support is lukewarm (hah! a pun) in some cases.

  30. Rod McLaughlin says:
    May 15, 2014 at 8:23 pm
    “Now in a McCarthyite move — his analogy — they have bullied him into resigning by refusing to collaborate with him unless he leaves.”

    His analogy is inaccurate. Senator McCarthy had people imprisoned for their opinions. Calling someone names and refusing to co-author academic papers with them is hardly in the same league.

    Besides those imprisoned, there were also many who lost their jobs and whose careers were destroyed. McCarthyism is defined as the practice of publicizing accusations of political disloyalty or subversion with insufficient regard for evidence, and as the use of unfair investigatory or accusatory methods in order to suppress opposition.

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/McCarthyism

    The phrase “accusatory methods to suppress opposition” sure sounds like what was done to Bengtsson.

  31. jimmi_the_dalek says:
    May 15, 2014 at 9:16 pm
    If Bengtsson is such a sceptic, why is he publishing papers like this:

    “The climate of the Earth, like planetary climates in general, is broadly controlled by solar irradiation, planetary albedo and emissivity as well as its rotation rate and distribution of land (with its orography) and oceans. However, the majority of climate fluctuations that affect mankind are internal modes of the general circulation of the atmosphere and the oceans. Some of these modes, such as El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO), are quasi-regular and have some longer-term predictive skill; others like the Arctic and Antarctic Oscillation are chaotic and generally unpredictable beyond a few weeks. Studies using general circulation models indicate that internal processes dominate the regional climate and that some like ENSO events have even distinct global signatures. This is one of the reasons why it is so difficult to separate internal climate processes from external ones caused, for example, by changes in greenhouse gases and solar irradiation. However, the accumulation of the warmest seasons during the latest two decades is lending strong support to the forcing of the greenhouse gases. As models are getting more comprehensive, they show a gradually broader range of internal processes including those on longer time scales, challenging the interpretation of the causes of past and present climate events further.

    What is the climate system able to do ‘on its own’?
    By:Bengtsson, L
    TELLUS SERIES B-CHEMICAL AND PHYSICAL METEOROLOGY
    Volume: 65
    Article Number: 20189

    As far as I can see (and admittedly I only checked his 2013 publications) all his recent papers would be classed as “supporting AGW” in an infamous survey, though support is lukewarm (hah! a pun) in some cases.

    Where do you read support for the “anthropogenic” in AGW in that paper of Bengtsson’s? Don’t most skeptics accept that “greenhouse” gases do have a warming effect? There are other greenhouse gases besides the minuscule percentage of CO2 that’s anthropogenic.

  32. 15 May: LATimes: David Horsey: Marco Rubio on climate change: Panderer or pudding head?
    Having thrown in his lot with the deniers of climate change on the weekend, by Tuesday he was tempering his remarks. During an appearance at the National Press Club in Washington, Rubio was asked to cite what “information, reports, studies or otherwise” had led him to conclude human activity played no role in climate shifts. In response, the Republican senator failed to name any source to back up his skepticism and, instead, pulled back a bit from his earlier statement…
    ***A shift away from fossil fuels does not have to “destroy our economy,” as Rubio says, echoing the propaganda of the oil and coal industries. Policies that reduce our CO2 output and build new alternative energy industries would, in fact, push the U.S. to the world economic forefront…
    This isn’t rocket science — but it is science. Apparently, like too many of his fellow conservatives, Rubio would rather not listen to scientists when they say things that contradict the moronic fictions embraced by the hard-core base of the Republican Party or the PR of the fossil fuels industries…
    ***Of course, if he ignores the hard truth and continues to just make things up, he doesn’t really deserve to be president.

    http://www.latimes.com/opinion/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-marco-rubio-on-climate-20140514-story.html

    ***Presidents (& climate scientists) don’t make things up? LOL.

    13 May: WSJ: Biden’s Son, Kerry Family Friend Join Ukrainian Gas Producer’s Board
    By Paul Sonne And James V. Grimaldi
    Vice President Joe Biden’s son and a close friend of Secretary of State John Kerry’s stepson have joined the board of a Ukrainian gas producer controlled by a former top security and energy official for deposed President Viktor Yanukovych.
    The move has attracted attention given Messrs. Biden’s and Kerry’s public roles in diplomacy toward Ukraine, where the U.S. expressed support for pro-Western demonstrators who toppled Mr. Yanukovych’s Kremlin-backed government in February…
    Hunter Biden, a lawyer by training and the younger of the vice president’s two sons, joined the board of directors of Ukrainian gas firm Burisma Holdings Ltd. this month and took on responsibility for the company’s legal unit, according to a statement issued by the closely held gas producer.
    His appointment came a few weeks after Devon Archer —college roommate of the secretary of state’s stepson, H.J. Heinz Co. ketchup heir Christopher Heinz—joined the board to help the gas firm attract U.S. investors, improve its corporate governance and expand its operations. A State Department spokesman declined to comment.
    “The fact that I joined the board of directors is largely based on the company’s will to grow,” Mr. Archer said in an interview with Ukrainian media published on Burisma’s website. “Last year alone witnessed a lot of transformations.” He vowed to make the company more transparent…
    The White House press secretary and the vice president’s office described Hunter Biden’s activities as those of a private citizen, bearing no endorsement of the U.S. government…
    Burisma has now added deep U.S. political connections to its arsenal.
    In addition to being Mr. Heinz’s college roommate at Yale, Mr. Archer was an adviser to Mr. Kerry’s presidential campaign in 2004 and co-chaired his National Finance Committee…etc…

    http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303851804579560542284706288?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702303851804579560542284706288.html

  33. Jimbo says: May 15, 2014 at 5:25 pm

    You missed the opportunity to remind us that he is a shape shifting lizard responsible for the death of Diana.

  34. Notice how “Climate Change” and Political Correctness in general require a Police State to enforce “belief” in their views.

  35. Rod McLaughlin says:
    May 15, 2014 at 8:23 pm
    “Senator McCarthy had people imprisoned for their opinions”
    Nonsense, McCarthy was US Senator not a prosecutor. He could not imprison anyone. I would hope the people on this blog would know the difference.

  36. I have yet to read any ‘SCIENTIFIC’ explanation that supports the ‘greenhouse GAS’ theory. Current data shows that CO2 and H2O most certainly absorb radiation at well defined frequencies. Also, if these gases are hot enough, can radiate at those frequencies. Direct sunlight is the only source of high frequency radiation for the upper frequency bands of CO2 and H2O but since these gas molecules are MUCH COOLER than the peak temperature of those radiation bands will pass some of that energy to other atmospheric gas molecules via conduction and the remainder of the energy will be radiated away at the lower frequency bands until the molecules are back to the local air temperature whence they continue cooling the atmosphere via their lowest radiation levels.
    The overall effect is to SHEILD the surface from those specific bands of high energy radiation FROM THE SUN. A cooling effect.
    At night the surface is radiating UP through the atmosphere but as the CO2 and H2O molecules are already radiating proportional to their local air temperature are unable to absorb that radiation from the surface. It is possible that some surface photons are absorbed but are usually re-radiated without effecting the overall energy level of the GAS molecule. This same argument applies to the surface. If it is already radiating a band of frequencies it is unable to reabsorb those same frequencies from any other source.

  37. I think you demean Senator McCarthy by lumping him in with these charlatans. (Mini sarc)
    He was likely suffering from Seasonal Affective Disorder (SADS) alcohol poisoning or Lyme’s disease, all common in the excessively cold climate from which he hailed. While infamous for the vehemence of his anti-communist views, he was a product of his time, and was highly respected by other rabid anti-communists such as the Kennedy family. He was a good friend of Joseph Kennedy, and Bobby Kennedy not only worked for Senator McCarthy, but he asked Joe McCarthy to be the Godfather of his first child. Thus Katherine Kennedy Townsend’s Godfather was Joseph P. McCarthy. Politics makes strange bedfellows.

  38. Richard111 says:
    May 15, 2014 at 10:26 pm

    Now that’s interesting, I’ve never heard it expressed that way before.
    I’ll have to think about that…
    (wish you’d posted a link)

  39. If that’s The Times leader then there’s editorial support. Looks like the UK is turning AGW into a left / right wing political issue with no science involved. Bonus!

  40. Somehow I doubt this is going to unravel Obama’s power of executive order, and Obamacare for the Climate is just around the corner.

  41. to keep the pages filled uk press big people up then tear them down. Maybe they decided climate no longer scares people so time to tear them down?

    top story front page of the times is not going to be gossip.

  42. The Times is not normally associated with AGW skepticism – so the readers’ comments are interesting. It seems the more BS “the team” produce, the less people believe it. I hope.

  43. Lennart Bengtsson, IMHO, needs to grow a pair, and stand up for his scientific principles. He could make Galileo proud if he did, and maybe lead the climate science cause back to scientific skepticism it has abandoned.

    History will judge the Global Warming CO2 Alarmists as the modern-era equivalent of the 1616 Vatican Inquisition that deemed a heliocentric solar system as heretical, and eventually punished Galileo by imprisoning him in 1632 until he died in 1644. Even in 1616, the Vatican declared heliocentric books as banned and Galileo was ordered to refrain from holding, teaching or defending heliocentric ideas.

    Sound like today? You betcha, with today’s media and Alarmists trying to cut off open debate on their climate change orthodoxy.

  44. DrudgeReport.com is now *leading* with this Times story, with a huge headline:

    GLOBAL WARMING SCIENTISTS COVERED UP SKEPTIC’S ‘DAMAGING’ REVIEW

    Screenshot: http://s6.postimg.org/uwszq1d69/image.jpg

    This is a lot bigger story now than just Bengtsson being intimidated off the GWPF board, since now the story includes one of his papers being politically rejected from a top journal, as Oracle’s non-paywalled version outlines:

    “Prof Bengtsson’s paper suggests that the Earth’s environment might be much less sensitive to greenhouse gases than previously thought.

    If he and his four co-authors are correct, it would mean that carbon dioxide and other pollutants are having a far less severe impact on climate than green activists would have us believe.

    The research, if made public, would be a huge challenge to the finding of the UN’s Intergovernmental panel on Climate Change (IPCC), that the global average temperature would rise by up to 4.5C if greenhouse gases in the atmosphere were allowed to double.
    The paper suggested that the climate might be less sensitive to greenhouse gases than had been claimed by the IPCC in its report last September, and recommended that more work be carried out ‘to reduce the underlying uncertainty’.

    The five contributing scientists submitted the paper to Environmental Research Letters – a highly regarded journal – but were told it had been rejected. A scientist asked by the journal to assess the paper under the peer review process reportedly wrote: ‘It is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of “errors” and worse from the climate sceptics media side.’

    Prof Bengtsson, 79, said it was ‘utterly unacceptable’ to advise against publishing a paper on the political grounds.

    He said: ‘It is an indication of how science is gradually being influenced by political views. The reality hasn’t been keeping up with the [computer] models.

    ‘If people are proposing to do major changes to the world’s economic system we must have much more solid information.’”

  45. So according to The Daily Mail story the peer reviewers said “… the paper contained errors …. “, and that is the reason it wasn’t published.
    So what were these errors?

  46. The five contributing scientists submitted the paper to Environmental Research Letters – a highly regarded journal – but were told it had been rejected. A scientist asked by the journal to assess the paper under the peer review process reportedly wrote: ‘It is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of “errors” and worse from the climate sceptics media side.’

    I would agree that this is an unacceptable reason for rejecting a paper. The authors should immediately publish all of the referee’s reports (there would have been more than one) to provide full evidence. The reports should be published completely, and in full, to avoid accusations of selective quotation.

  47. About 5 years ago I gave a two hour lecture on the sceptical view of AGW to 100 UK university students in the final year of their journalise degree. Apart from from one angry young man, who got frustrated when he couldn’t refute my points (he was checking on his laptop as I spoke), it went very well. I even got an enthusiastic round of applause!

    I did suggest that one day they might start writing many articles on the collapse of AGW.

  48. Atmospheric Science’s Well was poisoned about 50 years ago by a basic scientific mistake, the claim by Sagan that a planetary surface emits to its atmosphere net IR equivalent to a black body in radiative equilibrium with a sink at absolute zero. This is used to justify the view that lapse rate is caused by that IR being absorbed by GHGs, instead of gravity, and the ‘Extended GHE’.

    The likes of Bengtsson and Lindzen were taught it. They taught the present generation of Atmospheric Physicists. Yet I along with every experienced process engineer and experimental physicist on the Planet know it to be wrong from experiment.

    It’s the end game. Real data show our atmosphere is not warming despite continued increase of [CO2]. There is no ‘Atmospheric Hot Spot’ with associated accumulation of latent heat energy. The response by this deluded establishment, funded by Obama’s $billions, is to invent more fake physics, the ‘missing heat’ does not exist, and to ostracise anyone who breaches their omerta.

    This is not science.

  49. Cant take down the politicians but you can take down what they believe in Murdock and the rest of the British press launch another kick back against Leveson.

    Go get em boys

  50. Jimbo says:
    May 15, 2014 at 5:16 pm

    [snip – let’s not go there with that imagery -mod]

    I’m cool with that. However, it may become necessary in future if they continue to use the D word. They have become extreme in their language, asked us to rub asbesttos on our faces, call for imprisonment, capital punishment etc. All I did was pose a simple questions as to who qualifies as a den***? ;-)

  51. milodonharlani says:
    May 15, 2014 at 5:26 pm

    Jimbo says:
    May 15, 2014 at 5:13 pm

    The WaPo & especially the NYT are not “conservative-leaning”. That would be the Wall Street Journal, but even that periodical has been infested by the Warmunista Rot in its reportage if not its editorial page slant.

    Sorry, I should have said in terms of spread and brand recognition.

  52. Nigel S says:
    May 15, 2014 at 10:23 pm

    Jimbo says: May 15, 2014 at 5:25 pm

    You missed the opportunity to remind us that he is a shape shifting lizard responsible for the death of Diana.

    Would that be the Duke or his son? ;-)

    Anyway, that’s for conspiracy theorists not me. She died in a genuine car accident. Neil Armstrong actually stepped foot on the moon as attested by the existence of AGW sceptical astronauts. Darwin was a genius too. ;-)

  53. Jeef :

    Your post at May 15, 2014 at 11:14 pm says in total

    If that’s The Times leader then there’s editorial support. Looks like the UK is turning AGW into a left / right wing political issue with no science involved. Bonus!

    Say what!?
    In what way is this an indication that “the UK is turning AGW into a left / right wing political issue with no science involved”?

    And if that strange assertion were true then in what way could that possibly be a “bonus!” except for proponents of the AGW-scare?

    There is no scientific evidence that supports the AGW-scare; none, zilch, nada.
    There is scientific evidence which provides great doubt to the AGW-scare;

    e.g. global warming is not a twenty-first century phenomenon because there has been no global warming this century although atmospheric CO2 has continued to rise and this refutes projections the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) made in the twentieth century.

    The international promotion of the AGW-scare was defeated in 2009 when a successor to the Kyoto Protocol was prevented. But individual nations are continuing to adopt policies in response to the scare. Adopting the AGW-scare as “a left / right wing political issue with no science involved” locks the scare into the political process and, thus, prevents the scare from being defeated by the physical evidence.

    However, as several WUWT threads demonstrate, there are right-wingers who want to pretend the AGW-scare is a left / right wing political issue because that pretence is a tool for them to promote their political philosophies. They do not want discussion of the science because the science could defeat the AGW-scare which they want to continue to use as a tool.

    People from all parts of the political spectrum oppose the AGW-scare because they care about the harm being inflicted by policies which are justified by the scare. And we who oppose the AGW-scare have science on our side.

    Indeed, the reported censorship of scientific papers is because proponents of the AGW-scare understand that we who oppose the AGW-scare have science on our side.

    Richard

  54. I hope that the tide is turning, however slowly, but I’m not expecting sanity and scientific integrity to be restored in my lifetime. I’m infinitely saddened by that.

    I’ll be going into town today and I’ll definitely pick up a copy of the Times.
    Chris

  55. SkS and The Team are fouling up badly. One mis-step after another, each of their own making. Their cheap student politics and ya-boo stunts keep leaving them with egg on their faces but they keep doing it. Maybe they should get themselves some better communication advisors.

  56. The Times is clearly as warmist as any institution. Even in the opinion piece preview, “journalist” Matt Ridley uses the word “deniers” as if it’s perfectly reasonable. Perfectly ironic, anyway. Note: Yes, I know he states that members of the GWPF are not deniers, but in doing so he’s still trying to legitimise the word.

  57. After this Environmental Research Letters can no longer be considered a recognized peer reviewed journal. DO NOT SUBMIT work to trashy unscientific journals which could ruin your career! LOL

  58. [snip – anti Semitic rant which has no place here, and is off-topic – mod]

  59. AND now the UN noticed Bloomberg’s dictatorial impositions on New Yorkers and has appointed him to be bulldozer for the UN’s climate change world tax.

    Through imposed ignorance we are handing over our resources, funding (taxes), technology and sovereign decision making to basically an unelected, new monarchy (UN) made up of mostly 3rd world dictatorships who are just tools of a few dynastic families.

  60. [snip – anti Semitic rant which has no place here, and is off-topic – mod]

  61. There is a long history of AGW rejectionists getting their papers rejected from the leading journals because they are bad papers. They then complain about the mainstream excluding them despite the overwhelming evidence for exclusion because of incompetence.

    This is confirmed by the historical finding that nearly all of the past ‘skeptical’ papers that have been published ( Spencer on climate sensitivity and Lindzen on the iris effect come to mind) have been retracted or are cited mainly for their errors than anything else.

    Yet another paper claiming that the uncertainty in climate sensitivity might mean things are better than we fear, rather than worse, without any scientific justification for such a Panglossian conclusion is bound to be rejected by any reputable scientific journal. No doubt the authors will be able to find a journal to publish it. Probably along with articles on dog astrology….

  62. 1. The fundamental assumption of Climate Alchemy, that a planet’s surface emits to its GHG-containing atmosphere net IR energy at the ‘black body’ rate, is wrong.

    2. For equal surface and local atmosphere temperature, there is zero net, surface-emitted IR in the self-absorbed GHG bands.

    3. Even if there were any, that IR energy cannot thermalise in the gas phase (quantum exclusion via the Law of Equipartition of Energy).

    4. Lapse Rate warming is caused by Gravity and is independent of 1st order GHG properties.

    5. There is no ‘Enhanced GHE’.

    6. Experiment shows there is apparently near zero CO2-AGW.

    7. The logical conclusion is strong negative feedback by the atmosphere.

    8. The Representative of the People’s Liberation Front for Screwing Science and the Taxpayers (Revisionist) says all the above is wrong thus justifying the exclusion from the ‘approved’ (aka Vanity-Publishing) Literature of papers that contradict Official Diktat.

    9. You couldn’t make it up!

  63. jimmi_the_dalek (May 15, 2014 at 5:06 pm) says of The Times:

    “It is one of Rupert Murdoch’s. That is enough to define its policy.”

    Was Rupert Murdoch’s ownership of The Times enough to define its policy for the many years when it was vehemently warmist? A case of reading the owner rather than the paper, perhaps?

    [Sorry: missed a “/” the first time]

  64. Furthering the political-tax-money-energy control NEEDS that are behind the culture of the CAGW movement worldwide, listen to the US head of their democratic Party Head Debbie-Wasserman Schultz in this story by P.W. Adams:

    During a recent visit to Daemen College, Democratic National Committee Chairwoman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, was asked what was needed to break the gridlock in Congress when it comes to fighting Climate Change.

    Her answer: Elect fewer members of the Tea Party

    (00:00-00:14) Video below:

    Reporter: ‘What can we do to get the Congress unstuck and stop denying science?”

    Wasserman Schultz: “Elect fewer members of the Tea Party. That’s the political answer.”

    Congresswoman Schultz then proceeded to mock Marco Rubio’s belief that man made Climate Change doesn’t exist and she continued to spread the myth that 97% of scientists believe in Global Warming just before she dropped, what should have been considered, a political oops: A carbon tax is coming (2:36-4:02):

    “The carbon tax, the Cap and Trade legislation, that was originally a Republican idea. It was developed in the 1970′s when the clean air act was initially adopted. We’ve already got energy companies who are changing and national companies that are planning for the fact that are going to have to pay a carbon tax. They know it’s coming. That’s not the only solution…”

    (VIDEO-AT-LINK)

    Studies prove that a Carbon Tax will drive up energy cost which would drive the U.S. economy deeper into stagnation. But that hasn’t prevented Progressives in Congress from pushing it as the solution to fighting fictional man made Climate Change. The American Clean Energy and Security Act was the last time a bill requiring a Carbon Tax actually made any headway in Congress, but it was eventually defeated. The Democrats even tried to slip in a Carbon Tax on the budget they proposed earlier this year, but it didn’t stand a chance of becoming law. So this begs the question.

    If the DNC Chair is so convinced that a Carbon Tax is going to happen, and we know that one will never be passed by Congress (because of the Tea Party), then does that mean the President intends to create a Carbon Tax, or something similar, via Executive Order?

    With this President’s track record of circumventing Congress, …it wouldn’t surprise me.

    DNC Chair Wasserman Schultz: The Democrat Carbon Tax Is Coming (Video)
    Progressives Today ^ | May 15, 2014 | P.W. Adams

  65. izen says at May 16, 2014 at 3:58 am

    There is a long history of AGW rejectionists getting their papers rejected from the leading journals because they are bad papers. They then complain about the mainstream excluding them despite the overwhelming evidence for exclusion because of incompetence.

    A few more references would be useful but it is irrelevant anyway.

    This article is about this paper. It was rejected because the peer reviewer found it less than helpful to his political cause. If there were also scientific flaws then they would be publicised.
    Do you know what they were?

    Of course not.
    We can’t even be sure they exist.

    But we do know what the political reason for rejection was.

  66. ” jimmi_the_dalek says:
    May 15, 2014 at 9:16 pm

    If Bengtsson is such a sceptic, why is he publishing papers like this:”

    He just willing to engage in a scientific dialogue.
    None of the typical warmist will debate the issue- it’s suppose to be that
    the “science is settled”
    But of course at same time all models were proven wrong.
    So, yeah. It’s religious thing.

  67. Regarding richardscourtney says:
    May 16, 2014 at 1:34 am
    ——————————————————–
    Richard, I sincerely appreciate all of your posts. however I cannot support your supposition that CAGW, the poster child for “post normal science” is not to a great degree a political left right issue.

    Simply put, the proposed solutions to CAGW almost always involve proposals for larger more central government. Folk that support more central government, are inclined to be supportive of the CAGW assertion. People that are against larger more central Government, are inclined to be more skeptical of CAGW.

    Your contention that is should only be argued based on the scientific merits, is of course logical and correct. I have always argued against “post normal science as by its very nature it integrates politics and science. That infiltration long ago corrupted CAGW, indeed, it was there from the beginning.

  68. Joel O’Bryan says:
    May 15, 2014 at 11:46 pm
    Lennart Bengtsson, IMHO, needs to grow a pair, and stand up for his scientific principles. He could make Galileo proud if he did, and maybe lead the climate science cause back to scientific skepticism it has abandoned.

    _____

    You forget that Galileo buckled.

  69. izen says:
    May 16, 2014 at 3:58 am
    There is a long history of AGW rejectionists getting their papers rejected from the leading journals because they are bad papers…
    ================================
    Hardly, and your examples are few, and the details of those examples are pregnant with alarmist distortion of the true facts, while literally dozens of deeply flawed alarmist papers on Antarctica warming, 97% consensus, and poorly modeled studies of predicted disasters, which always fail to materialize, are allowed to publish without critical review.

  70. I don’t see why all the scientists and climatologists that disagree with the current ‘debate ending consensus’ of anthropomorphic global warming don’t create a critical think tank to counter balance
    groups/people like Michael Mann, the IIPC and all their surrogates. Currently they seem to all get gang banged individually by the warming fanatics and forcibly silenced. Instead of rolling over and giving in
    to the money driven interests of this hoax they should be at the forefront fighting for the majority of us that
    get written off as uneducated rubes as soon as we voice a differing opinion on the subject. What ever happened to fighting for what you believe and who would have better ammunition in the argument than those who have honest reservations about the integrity and interests of these people and groups than the dissenting scientists themselves. East Anglia is a joke to anyone objective enough to think critically and clearly on this issue. I hope the best for Lennart Bengtsson and I would really like to see him lead a credible group of well respected climatologists and meteorologists who disagree with this catastrophic world view and who could bring legitimate method to an issue that seems to have been taken up by societal loggerheads as gospel. Who knows, could possibly lead to some real revelation about global climate mechanics.

  71. CLIMATE MCCARTHYISM: THE SCANDAL GROWS James Delingpole, Breitbart

    Professor Lennart Bengtsson – the scientist at the heart of the “Climate McCarthyism” row – has hit back at his critics by accusing them of suppressing one of his studies for political reasons. . . .One of the peer-reviewers reportedly wrote:
    ‘It is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of “errors” and worse from the climate sceptics media side.’
    This, Prof Bengtsson told the Times, was “utterly unacceptable” and “an indication of how science is gradually being influenced by political views.”
    He added:
    ‘The problem we now have in the climate community is that some scientists are mixing up their scientific role with that of a climate activist.’

  72. @- M Courtney
    “This article is about this paper. It was rejected because the peer reviewer found it less than helpful to his political cause. If there were also scientific flaws then they would be publicised.”

    Would they?
    The only report of what a reviewer said is a cherry-picked sentence from an author of the paper. I think you are a little naive if you think that he would report the scientific problems with the paper.

    I will lay good odds that when{if} this paper ever sees the light of day the political problems that this paper might cause are a result of its scientific ineptitude.
    It is the historical pattern.

  73. @- M Courtney
    “This article is about this paper. It was rejected because the peer reviewer found it less than helpful to his political cause. If there were also scientific flaws then they would be publicised.”

    I have just discovered that a more complete report of the reviewer opinion is available, here is the reason why this paper was rejected. –

    “The overall innovation of the manuscript is very low, as the calculations made to compare the three studies are already available within each of the sources, most directly in Otto et al.

    The finding of differences between the three “assessments” and within the assessments (AR5), when assuming the energy balance model to be right, and compared to the CMIP5 models are reported as apparent inconsistencies.

    The paper does not make any significant attempt at explaining or understanding the differences, it rather puts out a very simplistic negative message giving at least the implicit impression of “errors” being made within and between these assessments, e.g. by emphasising the overlap of authors on two of the three studies.

    What a paper with this message should have done instead is recognising and explaining a series of “reasons” and “causes” for the differences.”

  74. Still really need more details. Did the “not helpful” stuff appear in the actual anonymous reviewers comments sent to the authors? If so, all the reviewers comments should be made public. Then the editor should publicly defend the decision to reject the submission.

  75. This is not the end. This is not even the beginning of the end. But perhaps it is the end of the beginning.

  76. The discovery of gravity and the determining that the sun is a million times bigger than the earth proved “harmful” to the theory that the sun revolves around the earth.

  77. Here’s what gets me… As humans, the rational reaction to such research (that AGW might not be nearly as bad as previously thought) should be: “Wow, that’s potentially great news! It would be a huge relief if we didn’t need to worry about the effects of putting more CO2 into the atmosphere. We need to explore this further.” But that’s anything but the reaction from the AGW disciples. Their stance clearly seems to be: “There is NO room for hope in this arena. We are set for disaster, and we will not hear anything to the contrary.”

    I’ve made this analogy before… Say that “science” had observed a distant, approaching asteroid and calculated that it is extremely likely that it will collide with the earth in approximately 5 years – and would undoubtedly cease life on this planet as we know it. Then let’s say that some amateur astronomer came along and produced a set of calculations that said that this asteroid would actually miss earth by 500,000 miles. Wouldn’t “science” be very interested in understanding what this amateur did differently in his observations and calculations? Wouldn’t these scientists be HOPING that they were wrong, with such an imminent demise otherwise? Or would they be rejecting his claims out of hand, just because he had a different outcome than the orthodoxy?

  78. Bengtsson’s rights have been violated and he has a case for the European Court of Justice.

    Freedom of association is the right to join or leave groups of a person’s own choosing, and for the group to take collective action to pursue the interests of members.[1] It is both an individual right and a collective right, guaranteed by all modern and democratic legal systems, including the United States Bill of Rights, article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and international law, including articles 20 and 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and Conventions 87 and 98 of the International Labour Organization.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_association

  79. I am a lay person but I wonder why skeptics allow the argument to be characterized as between “scientists” and “skeptics”. Shouldn’t the argument be between “alarmist scientists” (if that is what they really are) and “realistic scientists”.

  80. izen says:
    May 16, 2014 at 3:58 am
    There is a long history of AGW rejectionists getting their papers rejected from the leading journals because they are bad papers…
    =============
    define bad. Bad because they go against political correct beliefs, or bad because they are not based on observational evidence?

    the problem is that political correctness has overtaken factual correctness as the norms of society. You cannot say or write anything that is politically incorrect, no matter how accurate of factual it might be. as a result science has become subservient to politics. scientific findings must first be politically correct, before they will be considered factually correct.

    for example, imagine conducting a statistical study of population and finding correlations between intelligence and race or intelligence and sex or intelligence. such a study is unlikely to be published, no matter how solid the research, because it is not politically correct to say anything that contradicts racial or sexual equality.

    because studies that are politically incorrect are unlikely to get published, this skews society’s beliefs, reinforcing politically correct beliefs, no matter how factually incorrect they might be.

  81. When did demonising your opponents become so acceptable?
    ===================

    Let’s be clear that even folks on the same side often attach monikers to others they disagree with. I’m a “fringe” skeptic as Anthony would say. Slayers are frowned on by many.

    In the skeptic corner to be a proper skeptic you must first accept that CO2 will heat the open atmosphere (or the surface depending on which theory you listen to) and can only discuss the amount. Barring that acceptance you are a fill-in-the-blank.

  82. omnologos says:
    May 15, 2014 at 4:44 pm
    First it was Delingpole. Then the Spectator. Then the Daily Mail. Then The TImes. The important aspect is that this stuff is now entering the journalistic narrative, otherwise dominated by planet-burning deathwishes.
    ========================================================

    The Telegraph has also covered it. The Guardian and the Independent have nothing on it, which is no surprise as both publications are utterly fanatical about CAGW, nor has the BBC, to which the same applies.

  83. Crispin Tickell (One of Principal Godfathers of the CAGW Scam )

    Well T H Huxley was in many respects one of my heroes. Aldous was as well. In fact I think if anybody had any influence on me during my adolescence, it was Aldous Huxley. And I remember going to lunch with him and he asked me what essay I was writing that day for my history teacher. And I replied it was about the relations between the Pope and the Emperor. And he sort of took a deep breath, and for about 15 minutes he spoke about the secular versus the spiritual power. And I really sat back, staggered by what I heard, because he illuminated every aspect of this immensely complicated and still continuing problem, and I found it fascinating. When I sat down afterwards to try and write my essay, I was hardly able to write a word

    http://judithcurry.com/2013/08/11/climate-science-sociology/#comment-364124

    Note Tension between Tickell and Wigley

    Mike, Be aware that Tickell dislikes Tom Wigley; this isn’t hearsay – I know this for a fact. After Tom published that “delaying –emissions cutbacks – scenario” analysis in Nature, Tickell told me that Tom was irresponsible, & had damaged the likelihood of the cc issue being addressed seriously

    http://judithcurry.com/2013/08/24/who-is-on-which-side-in-the-climate-debate-anyways/#comment-369394

    Should we be surprised at the tension between the secular power and it’s supporting “Priesthood”, or that the Priestly establishment will want to maintain its influence and Religious authority?
    Recall Henry VIII schism with Rome, and also Henry II saying
    “Who will rid me of this troublesome priest”

    For people in England , there was always the real problem – do you obey the king or the pope ? In fact, this was rarely a problem as both kings and popes tended to act together as both wanted to remain powerful. On two occasions they fell out – one involved the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Becket, and the other Henry VIII.

    http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/thomas_becket.htm

    Bengtsson has committed heresy and sacrilege, and the “Scientific Priesthood” (in sacred cloaks of climate crusaders) wanting to maintain their status/influence and “Religious Authority” and stay in favour with their secular benefactors, must excommunicate him.

  84. To paraphrase Upton Sinclair,

    It is difficult to get a climate scientist to consider something when his scientific grant funding depends on him denying it.

  85. Summarising, the simplistic comparison of ranges from AR4, AR5, and Otto et al, combined with the statement they they are inconsistent is less then helpful, actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of “errors” and worse from the climate sceptics media side.
    =============
    political correctness of the worst kind. the referee is complaining about the political impact of the paper. why would any impartial referee care whether the paper gave claims to “the climate sceptics media side”?

  86. R. Crutcher says:
    May 15, 2014 at 10:25 pm
    Rod McLaughlin says:
    May 15, 2014 at 8:23 pm
    “Senator McCarthy had people imprisoned for their opinions”
    Nonsense, McCarthy was US Senator not a prosecutor. He could not imprison anyone. I would hope the people on this blog would know the difference.”

    McCarthy also turned out to be correct in the end despite the successful assassination of his name and reputation by the Left, which it turns out, did have a great deal to hide in those days, much like the Warmanistas of Climate do today. In the end, the truth will out.

  87. Great post, RCase! I concur, and have felt the same way for a while now. Cretins like Mann and others are actually fervently hoping for disasters and more human suffering to happen, because it will be the best way to further their own careers and feed their massive egos. Narcissistic in the extreme – it’s a diseased outlook on life.

  88. Speaking of the truth coming out, the ed crowd just finished a meeting in Oman and is now looking for this group http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/owg.html to begin finalizing the convergence of The Future We Want actual agenda. Scientists like Bengttson are an impediment as they make all these models to be a matter of physical science prediction. Instead of the social science transformation vehicles and redistribution schemes they actually are.

    When McCarthy sought to raise the spectre of Communism, many of the adherents had less interest in the USSR than in transforming the West to the small c vision based on Marx’s human development model. The USSR may be gone, but the human development model remains more hoped for than ever, CAGW is just the obscuring means to get there without admitting it.

  89. You have very good thoughts, Robin, and I agree with a lot of the ASCII that you type. It happened before my time, but I think that many of the useful idiots McCarthy was trying to ferret out were just that – idiots (just like many Hollywood/Entertainment types nowadays) and held the false Utopian ideal of Communism – still very much alive today in movements like CAGW and others – not the brutal reality of its real world application in the USSR. People seem to never learn. There will never be a human utopia.

    I do have one major bone to pick against you – I took a peak at your web page and I see that you are a lawyer. You know what Billy Shakespeare said about lawyers.

  90. I think the good thing to come out of all of this is that Dr. Bengtsson’s paper will now have so much attention that it can be judged on its merits by a much larger scientific audience than if it were just quietly published by some narrowly-focused climate journal. So, I think this whole episode just backfired badly on the warmists…(heh)

  91. I think the fact that Bengtsson is Swedish is also critical to why this was so abhorrent. Sweden is where the Human Dimensions component of the UN’s remake the West with the environment as the excuse juggernaut commenced in Stockholm in 72. It is where Bruntland was Prime Minister. As I explained here from the 1971 The New Totalitarians book http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/echoes-from-the-past-preparing-the-ground-for-social-engineers-requires-malleable-human-material/ Sweden’s use [of] education to change what students believe and value is now the model for the rest of the world.

    Sweden’s IGBP was the center for using sustainability to gain the human development model throughout the rest of the world that is now nearing its apex as the post-2015 UN agenda. Sweden is where the Belmont Challenge research is invisibly centered as well as the Future Earth Alliance that succeeded the Earth System Science Partnership.

    Swedes are supposed to be in the global change vanguard, not joining in the effort to restore sanity.

  92. Reblogged this on Power To The People and commented:
    Now the true aims of Alarmist Climate Scientists and other Government funded Green interests becomes clear. It is to censor, smear and denigrate anyone who dares to threaten the gravy train of tax pay dollars going down the toilet on Alarmist Climate Change research and wind turbines that don’t spin. This is what so called Climate “Science” and the so called noble goal of “saving the world” from man caused Climate Change has deteriorated into. A bunch of self serving money grubbers that could not exist without the use of other people’s money confiscated by the government. So anyone who threatens the lie that human use of fossil fuel is the primary culprit behind Catastrophic Climate Change must be stopped at all costs.

  93. @ RCase says:
    May 16, 2014 at 6:29 am

    @ Frodo says:
    May 16, 2014 at 6:59 am

    I think this is result of how the science funding is set. Let’s take your example – asteroid. The predicted threat will energize more research and engineering development and will sets up industry for manufacturing of shelters, survival gear, countermeasures, etc. And all this activity will be directed and controlled by wise states (wo)men with help from the genius (wo)men-scientists. Cool! Well, now look at this good news by (you choose: amateur, unknown, not belonging to “society”, well known-established-but-renegade) scientist that asteroid will miss… Booooring! I can give you real-life examples. Let’s say one scientist solicits from an agency funding for nano-bio-ultra-femto-nonlinear-Schrodinger-atto-Higgs-global- research. A Program Manager and the peer review committee members consider and conclude: cool, innovative, team is from the reputable XU, Yas A&M and ZSU, they never stepped on my “research toes”, proposal is little crazy (but that’s what you expect from the “frontier” research), and the research has tremendous future “impact” as it will allow superfast manipulation of propagation of “big data” on nano-scale for biomemetics. And another guy proposes to create detail theory of evaporation (for climate understanding, combustion research, and just for education): Uncool, already done, dude doesn’t belong to CIP-society, and (if successful) will undermine my research of turbulence in marine boundary layer, and has no “impact” (cause I think so). Done – and the funding of $7.58M goes to…

  94. Once we get rid of the climate warming hoax, we need to go back and look at the Freon R-12 hoax. A lot of people well knew that R-12 is a very heavy, inert molecule that cannot float up 15 miles. Yet, we let the same steam-roller tactics outlaw R-12 which uses far less energy for cooling.

    After that major, successful hoax, why would ‘scientists’ not believe they could ream warming past truth?

    And, what is next if they win on warming?

  95. Has any other paper published this? I don’t have access to full article in The Times.

  96. David A:

    In response to my post at May 16, 2014 at 5:34 am which is here you have provided your post at May 16, 2014 at 1:34 am that is .

    Your post concludes by saying to me

    Your contention that is should only be argued based on the scientific merits, is of course logical and correct. I have always argued against “post normal science as by its very nature it integrates politics and science. That infiltration long ago corrupted CAGW, indeed, it was there from the beginning.

    I am pleased that you conclude by saying we agree about this. But I am at a loss to understand why you wrote your post to say you disagree with my having made that “contention”.

    I am gratified that others are starting to object to the use of WUWT as a forum for promoting displacement of AGW-skepticism by right-wing politics; see e.g. the active WUWT thread at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/15/webcast-on-now-re-thinking-climate-denialism/

    Richard

  97. Richard, you stated…”I am pleased that you conclude by saying we agree about this. But I am at a loss to understand why you wrote your post to say you disagree with my having made that “contention”.
    ===================================
    I hope it to be fairly simple. I am saying that manifestly in reality, (observations vs the ideal) CAGW is, or has become an offensive weapon for the government centrist power idealists looking for any effective tool to increase their central authority. The other political side is on the defensive. Both sides have an inbuilt bias. Yourself, being a socialist, yet a strong CAGW skeptic, speak very well for your honesty and integrity.

  98. Rod McLaughlin says:
    May 15, 2014 at 8:23 pm
    “Now in a McCarthyite move — his analogy — they have bullied him into resigning by refusing to collaborate with him unless he leaves.”

    His analogy is inaccurate. Senator McCarthy had people imprisoned for their opinions. Calling someone names and refusing to co-author academic papers with them is hardly in the same league.

    Where did you pick up this ridiculous fable, Mr. McLaughlin? Joe McCarthy never had anyone imprisoned (or tapped on the shoulder, or gently tut-tutted at, or looked at askance) for their opinions.

  99. Izen, Thank You for addressing my comment and focussing on this paper.

    So, from your further study, you have found that the main objection is that the conclusion of this paper was already well known. Therefore, the paper was unoriginal.
    And also that the peer reviewer thought that this knowledge was stated in such a way as to be of help to sceptics.

    So you are arguing that the facts are correct and accepted as such but you prefer a different political spin.

    It seems we both agree with the interpretation of Nigel Lawson.
    This is unusual for me, too.

  100. I bought this Times edition for a flight today. The editorial by Mat Ridley ends with this:
    “What is the opposite of diversity? University.”
    Which would be more funny if it weren’t so true.

  101. @ Robin
    “Sweden is where the Human Dimensions component of the UN’s remake the West with the environment as the excuse juggernaut commenced in Stockholm in 72. It is where Bruntland was Prime Minister.”

    Gro Bruntland was Prime Minister of Norway.

  102. James Strom wrote: “You forget that Galileo buckled.”

    Galileo continued to write and he compared the two systems (Ptolemaic and Copernican) in 1630. For which he was finally imprisoned. He continued to fight the orthodoxy until his imprisonment. Those days you could actually be thrown in deep dungeons and much worse. Today, that is just a metaphor, so far.

    It seems pretty clear to me (and lot others here) that time, nature, and history will eventually make fools of Dr Bengtsson’s critics.

    AND we are here today, being branded deniers and worse, not INSPITE OF the Bengtsson’s in the climate science world, but BECAUSE OF the Bengtsson’s who retreated back to orthodoxy to save their grants and peer status.

    • Well said. Unfortunately what will the cost be, on a global scale, in terms of loss of individual liberty and and income before that realization sets in? Galileo spent almost the last 10 years of his life under house arrest, until he died, and never saw his theories proven or accepted. It was almost 100 years before the Church allowed any of his books to be printed again. Btw, I think it’s funny and ironic that his middle finger is on display at a museum in Italy. Hope it’s pointed at the Vatican.

  103. The March 20, 2000, edition of the UK Independent newspaper carried an article headlined “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past”. The carbo-nazis have been peddling this pseudo-scientific nonsense for decades — even in the face of mounting evidence and empirical data to the contrary — because they want to impose a carbon tax on all of humanity. It’s all about the money, or government revenue, as usual.

  104. The March 20, 2000, edition of the UK Independent newspaper carried an article headlined “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past”. The carbo-nazis have been peddling this pseudo-scientific nonsense for decades — even in the face of mounting evidence and empirical data to the contrary — because they want to impose a carbon tax on all of humanity. It’s all about the money (or increased government revenue) as usual.

  105. “The Establishment Academics are becoming just fascist Marxists hell-bent on manipulating society for personal gain and power.”

    “Global Warming is another hidden agenda. The politicians are eager to climb on board not to save the world, but to raise taxes. The academics are driven by the money so they can sit in their rooms collect welfare checks for totally worthless nonsense.”

    Google:

    Global Warming Fascist Movement & Academic Welfare

    Obama killed the ‘Constellation’ program and has NASA budget concentrated on proving that AGW exists and ‘Muslim Outreach’.

Comments are closed.