Lennart Bengtsson speaks on the GWPF and furor over his bullying by his climate science peers

Bishop Hill notes: “Swedish website Uppsalainitiativet has managed to get a guest post from Lennart Bengtsson in which he examines the recent furore over his brief involvement with GWPF and explains his views on climate science.”

Well worth a read.

What is perhaps most worrying is the increased tendency of pseudo-science in climate research. This is revealed through the bias in publication records towards only reporting results that support one climate hypothesis, while refraining from publishing results that deviate. Even extremely cold weather, as this year’s winter in north Eastern USA and Canada, is regarded as a consequence of the greenhouse effect.

Were Karl Popper alive today we would certainly have met with fierce critique of this behavior. It is also demonstrated in journals’ reluctance to address issues contradicting simplified climate assessments, such as the long period during the last 17 years with insignificant or no warming over the oceans, and the increase in sea-ice cover around the Antarctic. My colleagues and I have been met with scant understanding when trying to point out that observations indicate lower climate sensitivity than model calculations indicate. Such behavior may not even be intentional but rather attributed to an effect that my colleague Hans von Storch calls a social construct.

Source: http://uppsalainitiativet.blogspot.se/2014/05/guest-post-by-lennart-bengtsson-my-view.html?m=1

About these ads

58 thoughts on “Lennart Bengtsson speaks on the GWPF and furor over his bullying by his climate science peers

  1. The Alarmists made a major tactical error with Bengtsson, as his subsequent public criticism of the IPCC-backed approach is pretty harsh, and he’s too high-profile to sweep under the carpet.

    I have just written a blog post of my own on Bengtsson: http://jonathanabbott99.wordpress.com/2014/05/22/scientists-one-by-one/

    The point I make is that although CAGW is now mainly a political issue, politicians will not backtrack on Green-inspired policies until a critical mass is reached of respectable scientists that disavow the IPCC. The politicians need a creditable ‘side’ to choose in the scientific debate. We are getting closer to that all the time: I wonder which scientist will be next to enter the fray?

  2. Knowingly or not, the use of the term “denier” in the climate war zone is anti-Semitic hate speech and should be labeled as such.

  3. Pointman says:
    May 22, 2014 at 9:25 am

    Great article Pointman, when do you think we get to the “acceptance” stage of the dying AGW movement for believers?

  4. The elder seems to be doing a good job of destroying himself. Spinning round so fast, he’s getting dizzy. What more sweet meats might he provide?

    REPLY:
    Well, your like minded friends have certainly done far worse, with having to suck up to “big oil” and promise to hide it.

    – Anthony

  5. The skeptical science kidz are there in the comments, ignoring his point about social constructs and arguing that he’s wrong about climate change and severe weather. I’m trying to decide if there’s any value in engaging over there, or if I’d just be driving my blood pressure up to no purpose.

  6. Did I miss it or has Prof. Bengtsson released his paper so we can judge for ourselves.

  7. CACA has corrupted even the philosophy of science, such that the ilk of Mosher & Oreskes challenge Feynman & Popper in their attempts to discredit skepticism, peddling the new, anti-scientific method doctrine of consensus.

  8. Mark Bofill says:
    May 22, 2014 at 9:48 am

    The skeptical science kidz are there in the comments, …. I’m trying to decide if there’s any value in engaging over there, or if I’d just be driving my blood pressure up to no purpose.

    I doubt SkS will get much traction at Bishop Hill’s site. Few fools there. If you comment, stay classy and ignore their responses.

  9. “Acceptance” will be when they simply stop talking about it.

    You can see some of that happening in the fight against fracking in the US; although some activists are still trying to make noise about it, for all practical purposes the fight is over and fracking has won. And the evidence is that no one except the fringes is talking about it anymore. (New York State is an exception; but that’s only 1 out of 50, and it’s an outlier)

  10. Succinct and most importantly, dead on accurate!

    Agenda driven science, is not science.

    I still think we should crowd source, or perhap a better term would be crowd fund, litigation against the perpetrators. Any Attorneys want to make a name for themselves? Here is your chance!

    Stopping this CAGW madness needs to start somewhere. Why not here?

    Step up as he did, or just shut up, is the motto.

    Whining behind a keyboard does nothing to cure the illness and it is quite obvious that climate science is very near a terminally ill stage.

    Regards Ed

  11. {all bold emphasis mine – JW}

    Lennart Bengtsson said, (21 maj 2014 on the Swedish website Uppsalainitiativet)

    “. . . .

    That I have taken a stand trying to put the climate debate onto new tracks has resulted in rather violent protests. I have not only been labeled a sceptic but even a denier, and faced harsh criticism from colleagues. Even contemplating my connections with GWPF was deemed unheard of and scandalous.

    I find it difficult to believe that the prominent Jewish scientists in the GWPF council appreciate being labeled deniers. The low-point is probably having been labeled “world criminal” by a representative of the English wind power-industry. I want to stress that I am a sworn enemy of the social construction of natural science that has garnered so much traction in the last years. For example, German scientists have attempted to launch what they call “good” science to ensure that natural science shouldn’t be driven by what they view as anti-social curiosity-research by researching things that might not be “good”. Einstein’s “anti-social behavior”, when he besides his responsible work as a patent office clerk in Bern also researched on the theory of relativity and the photoelectric effect, was of course reprehensible, and to do this during work-time! Even current labor unions would have strongly condemned this.

    . . .”

    – – – – – – – – – – –

    This is a keeper line for independent intellectuals everywhere.

    “I want to stress that I am a sworn enemy of the social construction of natural science that has garnered so much traction in the last years.”

    – Lennart Bengtsson (21 maj 2014 on the Swedish website Uppsalainitiativet)

    I want to make it clear that I am also a sworn enemy of what Bengtsson called “the social construction of natural science” which I call physical science merely a servant of post-modern subjectivism.

    John

  12. ossqss says:
    May 22, 2014 at 10:13 am

    No litigation will help as whole system of “organized” science funding and publication of the scientific results is rotten to the foundation. It was never good in the first place; however, at least it was not organized and thus was some diversity and competition of ideas. Today, the organized science behaves in similar corrupt ways and litigating against several crooks is like fighting Lernaean Hydra.

    More effective approach will be to disband all funding agencies. Let reduce taxes and give incentive to the private industries to fund scientific progress.

  13. Walt, if nothing is done, it is free reign time to bully anyone else into submission that the climate bullies choose. If there is no consequense for bad behavior, it perpetuates itself until it experiences and intervention. You don’t get to the funding unless you expose those who get the funding, for what they are and the threatening tactics they use. Let alone the slander.

    Would you take your approach if someone bullied your family members or friends?

    In most legal worlds, if you create apprehension through your actions against someone, you are guilty of assault. This is a prime example of how threats changed behavior and a cogniative choice out of fear for ones well being.

    This is a crime in most countries and should be viewed as such.

    Regards Ed

  14. in the same way as those in flip flops can defeat a highly resourced army so can a few people defeat the multi billion pound hockey stick programme with nothing but the truth

  15. I left a message explaining that “denier” was not a reference to the work of Freud, as someone suggested. The message got removed and anything I send since disappears.

    Yet another crusading echo chamber.

    • Greg,

      ======
      I left a message explaining that “denier” was not a reference to the work of Freud, as someone suggested. The message got removed and anything I send since disappears.
      ======

      Yes this is ‘revisionism’ at it’s worse. It is well understood that it is a comparison to holocaust deniers. That some should now try to ‘re-frame’ it in a psychological context shows their ‘leftist’ leanings and the ‘tools’ typical employed by that group.

      I believe the few early uses actually stated this comparison explicitly so there could be no doubt. It would be good to find such a quote, although i guess since posts are deleted it may be pointless to post it there.

  16. Bengtsson had to be silenced by the CAGW because his push for more responsible climate science discourse threatens many the Billions in Euros (€) and USD ($) currently being spent on wind and solar projects across Europe, both directly and in government subsidies.

    That kind of entrenched big-money Green power interests felt threatened and thus they responded, as Dr Bengtsson wrote, “The low-point is probably having been labeled “world criminal” by a representative of the English wind power-industry.”

    Hence the need for, as Obama put it, “the debate is over..” to silence further heretical discussions.

  17. @Mark Bofill
    yep – I looked at the comments there too – I just decided it was likely a waste of time and effort, the second comment by some geezer Roger Benagfre or somesuch was a hoot! I must confess that the latter part of Bengstsson’s text seemed a little inchoerent – but I suppose we must make allowance for translation?
    The issue still remains that the good Prof took a scientific stand – and an open/transparent stand at that, but because it questioned the ‘party line’ he was railroaded because of it – that should NEVER happen in science. Sure, you can be laughed at, ridiculed even, but one should never be ousted because of a skeptical view. On the contrary, one would assume that the ‘believers’ would want to convince the ‘non-believers’ by showing them the ‘proof’ rather than sidelining them, especially those with influence!…….. (of course, in the absence of such ‘proof’ – therein lies the problem for all us skeptics!)

  18. Kev-in-Uk,

    The issue still remains that the good Prof took a scientific stand – and an open/transparent stand at that, but because it questioned the ‘party line’ he was railroaded because of it – that should NEVER happen in science.

    I agree. It’s sad but unsurprising to me that the commenters all appear to miss or ignore his point.
    Ah well.

  19. .Interesting commentary at the blog where this was published: “Anonymous” commented

    …because nobody in their sound mind should find any reason to disagree with anything that Bengtsson wrote in his piece.

    And sure enough some idiot had to take up the challenge:

    Rutger Benfagre22 maj 2014 12:14

    I can easily find some;

    “Because of chaos theory it is practically impossible to make climate forecasts, since weather cannot be predicted more than one or several weeks. For this reason, climate calculations are uncertain even if all model equations would be perfect.”

    Likewise, we can not determine which lobe of the lung cancer will start in if you smoke, nor can we determine who will eventually develop lung cancer and who will not, yet we can easily determine within fairly small errors how many people will each year. This argument is a false analogy.

    Um… speaking of false analogies. CO2 and cigarette smoke?

    Otherwise rational people say very strange things when it comes to their belief systems.

  20. such as the long period during the last 17 years with insignificant or no warming over the oceans, and the increase in sea-ice cover around the Antarctic
    =====
    I’m not correcting him…because he’s right
    It just seems that if ocean temps stayed the same…so would the ice
    But yet, sea ice has massively increased…….which has to mean ocean temps have drastically gone down

    ( and yes, I do understand Antarctic currents, heat hiding in the deep oceans, and fresh water runoff)

  21. Please go ahead and make some comments on that blog.
    Living in Sweden with our left wing, green MSM is a royal PITA.
    Not a single swedish media has reported on Lennart Bengtsson leaving GWPF, can you believe it.

  22. Mark Bofill, dont feed the trolls at Uppsalainitiativet.
    They are socialist warmists that censor 9 out of 10 submissions from sceptics.
    I have tried reasoning with them but they are a cult, a sect, its no use.
    They can also be pretty nasty at a personal level, especially Olle Häggström.
    Leave them alone is my advice, in sweden we dont engage with them anymore, it is pointless, like discussing evolution with a Jehovas witness.

  23. The attack dogs are already on Bengtsson tail , and like most religions ‘the cause ‘ takes a much dimmer view of ‘heretics ‘ than it does that have never believed.
    Its to be hopped that has they get madder and stupider in their attacks that others working in science who have shamefully kept their mouths shut over the poor practice and worse behaviour seen in climate ‘science’ start to say enough is enough and call it out.

  24. Karl Popper’s famous essay. Worthwhile reading – http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html

    1. It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory — if we look for confirmations. [in other words is you only look for confirmation, you will probably find it. You need to look for refutations, too.]

    2. Confirmations should count only if they are the result of risky predictions; that is to say, if, unenlightened by the theory in question, we should have expected an event which was incompatible with the theory — an event which would have refuted the theory.

    3. Every “good” scientific theory is a prohibition: it forbids certain things to happen. The more a theory forbids, the better it is. [Climate 'science' rules out nothing. Every possible outcome is 'consistent' with the theory]

    4. A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is non-scientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice.

    5. Every genuine test of a theory is an attempt to falsify it, or to refute it. Testability is falsifiability; but there are degrees of testability: some theories are more testable, more exposed to refutation, than others; they take, as it were, greater risks.

    6. Confirming evidence should not count except when it is the result of a genuine test of the theory; and this means that it can be presented as a serious but unsuccessful attempt to falsify the theory. (I now speak in such cases of “corroborating evidence.”)

    7. Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers — for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by reinterpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status. (I later described such a rescuing operation as a “conventionalist twist” or a “conventionalist stratagem.”)

  25. LB wrties, “What is perhaps most worrying is the increased tendency of pseudo-science in climate research. This is revealed through the bias in publication records towards only reporting results that support one climate hypothesis, while refraining from publishing results that deviate. ”

    I couldn’t agree more. That pseudo-science that supports global warming hypotheses has spammed the biological and ecological literature and distorted our understanding of natural environmental dynamics. It is a far bigger problem than any gate-keeping.

  26. Björn from sweden says:
    May 22, 2014 at 11:33 am

    Mark Bofill, dont feed the trolls at Uppsalainitiativet.
    They are socialist warmists that censor 9 out of 10 submissions from sceptics.
    I have tried reasoning with them but they are a cult, a sect, its no use.
    They can also be pretty nasty at a personal level, especially Olle Häggström.
    Leave them alone is my advice, in sweden we dont engage with them anymore, it is pointless, like discussing evolution with a Jehovas witness.

    Thanks for the warning. :) It does seem to their credit that they posted Bengtsson’s words at all, but I have a deep seated aversion to posting in forums where my words are likely to be censored.

  27. cwon14 says:
    May 22, 2014 at 9:31 am
    “Knowingly or not, the use of the term “denier” in the climate war zone is anti-Semitic hate speech and should be labeled as such.”

    Why is it then that Mr Monckton used it here not less than a week ago to denigrate the other side and it went unnoticed. I made the point then and I will make it now… either it is appropriate to use the term “denier” or it is not? You can’t have it both ways.

  28. If the debate over climate change and the role of CO2 were just a scientific debate, none of the claims and counter claims would matter. It would be a strictly scientific debate and eventually sort itself out. Unfortunately, climate change is not simply a scientific debate. It is part and parcel of a public policy debate where trillions of dollars are at stake. That is why public opinion — specifically, voter opinion — matters so much. As long as proponents of AGW have sufficient political weight, governments will respond accordingly. Ours is the uphill battle. It is the undecided, the fence sitters who have to be persuaded to judge AGW on the science. That is a battle where every scientist is important and where lives and careers hang in the balance. Bengtsson is more courageous than any of us truly appreciate.

  29. Warmist deviants flaunting your speckled bands, take note: The bigger the lie, the greater the fail. As ostrich fetishists, your grotesque self-esteem is far past-due for a come-uppance.

  30. The comments there reflect a sad reality – the AGW camp remains incapable of understanding Bengtsson’s point.

  31. KNR says:
    May 22, 2014 at 11:33 am

    The attack dogs are already on Bengtsson tail , and like most religions ‘the cause ‘ takes a much dimmer view of ‘heretics‘ apostates than it does that have never believed.

  32. Unbelievable!

    Am I wrong about “Trolls” coming from Scandinavian Mythology?

    The comments over there are so ridiculous as to be embarrassing (“verguenza ajena”).

    Cannot they see that they are shooting their feet? What is the purpose of defending “extreme weather” against their own Gospel, the IPCC report?

    Any person coming now to this debate with no preconceived stance and reading the comments there will immediately know where rationality is.

  33. Alan says: May 22, 2014 at 12:45 pm
    “As long as proponents of AGW have sufficient political weight, governments will respond accordingly. ”

    Yes, but the blizzard started in Copenhagen about five years ago. For politicians that’s a lifetime – largely sufficient to dismount a dead horse.

  34. José Tomás says: Cannot they see that they are shooting their feet? What is the purpose of defending “extreme weather” against their own Gospel, the IPCC report?

    Hey , do you think any of those jerks have actually read AR5?

    Just look at the level of comments.

  35. ” It is part and parcel of a public policy debate where trillions of dollars are at stake. ”

    Mere trillions? You have not been paying attention to the UNFCCCC process. The green slush fund they are trying to get signed up in Paris at the end of this year is to ONE HUNDRED TRILLION USD .

    No a one off. That’s EVERY YEAR TO THE END OF TIME and some have already said “it’s not enough”.

    It’s you and I that are going get the bill.

  36. Pointman says:
    May 22, 2014 at 9:25 am

    Bengtsson had to be destroyed. Not only was he opening up a dialogue with the climate skeptics, which meant he was straying away from the teachings of the one true church, but he’d also called into serious question the ability of the computer models to generate credible climate predictions.

    http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2014/05/22/the-age-of-unenlightenment/

    Pointman

    And from the link…

    Former colleagues even refused to work with him and his papers in the publication process were suddenly being rejected for what was obviously non-scientific reasons.

    Pointman, you’re an excellent writer but “his papers were suddenly rejected”? We’re aware of one such paper. Are there more or are you being a bit hysterical?

  37. One would think that the issue, as Jaakko observes, would have been derailed by now, but there is a tremendous amount of inertia in the AGW legislative and regulatory machine at federal, state and local levels. If the Republicans secure the Senate in November, it will help, but each state is free to enact laws and regulations. In Canada, the federal government is none to keen about a carbon tax, but that hasn’t stopped B.C. from enacting one. I believe my point still stands. This will be a long battle where each and every scientist is needed.

  38. Margaret Hardman says:
    May 22, 2014 at 9:40 am

    The elder seems to be doing a good job of destroying himself. Spinning round so fast, he’s getting dizzy. What more sweet meats might he provide?

    I have told you before Margaret, go get your head injury sorted out. Lots of fluff and meat stuffing will do you fine, if you know what I mean.

    What is perhaps most worrying is the increased tendency of pseudo-science in climate research. This is revealed through the bias in publication records towards only reporting results that support one climate hypothesis, while refraining from publishing results that deviate. Even extremely cold weather, as this year’s winter in north Eastern USA and Canada, is regarded as a consequence of the greenhouse effect.

    You must try to understand them and their strange ways.

  39. This will be a long battle where each and every scientist is needed.

    Or maybe only one scientist will be needed and it will be a short battle:

    Latitude says:
    May 11, 2014 at 1:46 pm

    Thursday, May 8, 2014
    New paper questions the ‘basic physics’ underlying climate alarm

    A forthcoming paper published in Progress in Physics has important implications for the ‘basic physics’ of climate change. Physicist Dr. Pierre-Marie Robitaille’s paper(s) show the assumption that greenhouse gases and other non-blackbody materials follow the blackbody laws of Kirchhoff, Planck, and Stefan-Boltzmann is incorrect, that the laws and constants of Planck and Boltzmann are not universal and widely vary by material or different gases. Dr. Robitaille demonstrates CO2 and water vapor act in the opposite manner of actual blackbodies [climate scientists falsely assume greenhouse gases act as true blackbodies], demonstrating decreasing emissivity with increases in temperature. True blackbodies instead increase emissivity to the 4th power of temperature, and thus the blackbody laws of Kirchhoff, Planck, and Stefan-Boltzmann only apply to true blackbodies, not greenhouse gases or most other materials. The significance to the radiative ‘greenhouse effect’ is that the climate is less sensitive to both CO2 and water vapor since both are less ‘greenhouse-like’ emitters and absorbers of IR radiation as temperatures increase.

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/new-paper-questions-basic-physics.html

  40. Greg May 22, 2014 at 2.45 pm

    The world GDP for 2012 was 71,67 trillion USD. [Google World GDP] I suggest your number for the green slush fund may be an error. I share your disgust at the tax dollars wasted on green energy, but we should not imitate the habits of our opponents in giving grossly distorted data.

    Without rancour, Paul Watkinson.

  41. Never forget President Eisenhower’s warnings to the nation in his farewell address.
    We hear endlessly about the ‘Military-Industrial Complex’, but his warning on the federal takeover of science is, in my opinion, even more relevant.

    Here is a ‘cut-and-paste’ from his speech:

    Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

    In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

    Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

    The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.

    Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

    The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.

  42. Jumbo and Anthony,

    If Bengtsson had the courage of his convictions, he would have stuck it out. Instead he went in a whine-fest. His moan about being suppressed turned out to be PR tosh. Single handedlyhe’s done your cause a lot of harm but I suspect you won’t agree.

    REPLY: In your world, anything is possible. – Anthony

  43. Anthony, in my world plenty is impossible. In yours, of course, laissez faire. More sweet meats.

    REPLY: yeah well, to each his/her own… enjoy your sweet meat fantasy lady – A

  44. Simon says:
    May 22, 2014 at 12:12 pm
    cwon14 says:
    May 22, 2014 at 9:31 am
    “Knowingly or not, the use of the term “denier” in the climate war zone is anti-Semitic hate speech and should be labeled as such.”

    Why is it then that Mr Monckton used it here not less than a week ago to denigrate the other side and it went unnoticed. I made the point then and I will make it now… either it is appropriate to use the term “denier” or it is not? You can’t have it both ways.
    ===============================================
    Not certain who “us guys” are, but your likely answer is context. For instance you used the word in your comment. Monckton was likely making a simple point, that by pointing to every change
    in weather, which has been happening for billions of years, as CO2 induced, the users of the
    “denier” label, were themselves denying climate change. (a fair point)

  45. I made a (long) comment on this, copied below. It is waiting for approval at that site. Since it was so long, it had to be posted in 2 parts, which are separated below with ++++++++++++++++++++

    Thanks much Dr. Bengtsson,
    I have been an operational meteorologist for 32 years, the last 2 decades, forecasting and observing global weather and how it effects crops and energy demand. I apply this in the commodities markets. I have studied climate for 15 years.

    Of course the time frame is what separates weather and climate. All meteorologists depend on weather models. The equations that represent the physics of the atmosphere on weather modela are different in many ways than those used with climate models. However, I understand the physics of both types of models and why they both fail. Despite failing at times, weather models are extraordinarily useful. Their value is dependant on the meteorologist recognizing when they are failing………which happens on a regular basis. A meteorologist must be constantly dialing in updates to previous weather forecasts based on fresher/more recent data that becomes available on each run. Meteorologists have an appreciation for timely reconciliation of the initial state fed into models so it best represents the new reality of empirical data/observations, which gives the models “another chance” to provide better guidance than what was provided yesterday, or last week.

    This is not the case with those that use global climate models. Even as global warming has stalled for well over a decade, instead of reconciliation with reality, a growing disparity has been allowed to take place. Models, with their upward temperature slope still effected by the global warming from the 1980’s/90’s are greatly diverging from observations since that time.

    The reason global climate models are failing is that climate scientists and others refuse to make the adjustments in them that currently represent the theory of catastrophic anthropagenic global warming. To make them less sensitive would result in “more modest” vs catastrophic warming. This would completely change the message from “we need to act now” and “the science is settled” or “debate is over”.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Another big reason to not see, what I see as obvious, is the problem we humans have with subjectivity and bias.There is so much on the line…….political, ego, monetary and most importantly, human emotions related to cognitive bias.
    Being baffled at why scientists, who are supposed to be objective, would be so subjective for years, has given me an opportunity to study this. Look at this list and note the numerous cognitive bias’s that you, me and all human beings have, including scientists.

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

    As a meteorologist, I can show you that strong to violent tornadoes in the US, peaked in the 1970’s(because of global cooling). http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images/tornado/clim/EF3-EF5.png That tropical cyclone energy peaked in the 1990’s. http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/accumulated_cyclone_energy.asp?basin=gl Global warming is not causing extreme cold and snow as we were told…….after snow and extreme cold increased. The hottest and driest weather in the US was during the decade of the 1930’s, the Dust Bowl years. Super Storm Sandy was nothing unusual. The US drought of 2012, came after setting the record for the longest stretch in history, 24 years of NOT having a widespread drought. With the exception of heavy rain events, after 32 years of observing weather and also comparing it to historic weather maps/records that I have, I can say confidently that most extreme weather has NOT increased. I challenge somebody to show me how burning fossil fuels shows anything different.

    Warming the higher latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, as we did in the 80’s/90’s, decreased the meridional temperature gradient that provides energy for many of these extreme weather elements. However, if you didn’t already agree with me, it’s likely that your confirmation bias and framing as well as several other cognitive bias’s most of us have, will keep your brain from objectively embracing these facts.

    Predicting the effects of elements on crop conditions and yields has provided me an opportunity to study the effects of CO2 on plants. To put it simply: One side is completely misrepresenting the tremendous benefits to our booming biosphere, vegetative health and world food production that increasing carbon dioxide has had on our world. http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/co2benefits/MonetaryBenefitsofRisingCO2onGlobalFoodProduction.pdf

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/07/130708103521.htm

    Why would this not be important to the discussion? The indisputable law of photosynthesis that we all learned in elementary school has not been repealed and replaced with a theory, which is failing to verify. Or has it?

  46. Because the politicians sign the front of the checks nobody should expect any change in behavior by the scientists until we have politicians that won’t sign check for crap science. For that to happen we need to change the way we’ve been voting. That requires better education, and unfortunately the same politicians sign those checks, too. This needs to be a grass roots effort. That should be obvious.

  47. STILL NO BENGTSSON ARTICLES WHATSOEVER ON major MSM, including BBC, tho BBC kindly placed a link to Readfearn’s latest diatribe on the results page of a search for Bengtsson articles, which only showed up a single result, a 2009 piece called “Cyclones not getting worse but could be heading to Britain, says study”:

    23 May: Guardian: Graham Readfearn: The GWPF bemoans state of climate debate – while promoting antagonism
    Nigel Lawson’s climate change sceptic group complains of ‘intolerance’ in climate science, but what of its own record?
    Professor Lennart Bengtsson, a 79-year-old meteorologist from the University of Reading, had resigned from the foundation’s academic advisory council only a couple of weeks after joining.
    According to Bengtsson, once news got out that he had joined the GWPF, colleagues and peers in the academic community put him under “enormous pressure” and one refused to co-author a science paper with him…

    (ATTACKS Lennart Bengtsson, Vaclav Klaus, Cardinal George Pell, Prime Minister John Howard, Professor Nir Shaviv, the Cato Institute’s emeritus Professor Richard Lindzen and Professor William Happer, Professor Ian Plimer, Dr Robert Carter, Heartland Institute, Professor Richard Tol, Bjorn Lomborg)

    But all this talk of McCarthyism and communists reminds me of a passage in the book Merchants of Doubt: How a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway.
    The book explores the roots of science denial, tracing many of its earliest actors – some of which are still active –to a group driven by a fear of communism and a fanatical devotion to free markets.
    “Evidently accepting that their ends justified their means, they embraced the tactics of their enemy, the very things they hated Soviet Communism for: its lies, its deceit, its denial of the very realities it had created.”
    COMMENTS: Bluecloud: A brilliant analysis of the denial industry. (AND THE COMMENTS GO DOWNHILL ALL THE WAY)

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2014/may/23/climate-mccarthyism-confected-outrage-checking-record-global-warming-policy-foundation

  48. even if Der Spiegel gives more space than i would like to critics of Bengtsson in this extremely lengthy but reasonablly balanced piece, one must ask how is it New York Times (or Revkin at Dot Earth), Washington Post, or BBC/ABC Australia have not done a single report on the Bengtsson affair? it is truly extraordinary & further proof the MSM has lost almost all credibility:

    23 May: Der Spiegel: A Heated Debate: Are Climate Scientists Being Forced to Toe the Line?
    By Axel Bojanowski
    After joining a controversial lobby group critical of climate change, meteorologist Lennart Bengtsson claims he was shunned by colleagues, leading him to quit. Some scientists complain pressure to conform to consensus opinion has become a serious hindrance in the field.
    News that Lennart Bengtsson, the respected former director of Germany’s Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, had joined the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), sent shockwaves through the climate research community…
    Gavin Schmidt a climatologist and climate modeler at NASA described the “alleged connection to McCarthy” as “ridiculous.” “As someone who has actually been threatened with criminal sanctions by a United States Senator only because of published science, I don’t quite see why Bengtsson’s total freedom to associate with anyone he wants — and let me be clear, he has this freedom — has in any way been compromised,” he said…
    Bengtsson said in an interview with SPIEGEL ONLINE that he wanted to open up the climate change debate by joining GWPF. He said that in view of large gaps in knowledge, the pressure to reach a consensus in climate research “does not make sense”.
    Nevertheless, by joining the political lobby group, Bengtsson opened himself up to criticism that he had taken a position inappropriate for a scientist of his stature…
    University of Washington climatologist Eric Steig says the activities of the GWPF are more reminiscent of McCarthyism than Bengtsson’s case…
    But even a recognized skeptical climate researcher Roger Pielke Jr., an environmental scientist at the University of Colorado, says the group uses science to cloak its political agenda. Pielke emphasizes, however, that as a lobbying group GWPF “has every right to advance whatever arguments it wants. It often focuses on stealth advocacy — hiding its politics in science — a strategy common across the climate issue, found on all ‘sides,’ and is pretty common across many issues.”
    Von Storch agrees that other political camps, such as environmental groups, also use “stealth advocates” to influence scientific debate. Pielke elaborates, “In a democracy people will organize around all sorts of shared interests, as they should, and many will share values that I don’t. So what? Bengtsson’s justifications for associating with GWPF are perfectly legitimate. That he was pressured by his peers with social and other sanctions reflects the deeply politicized nature of this issue.” …

    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/climate-scientists-mixed-over-controversy-surrounding-respected-researcher-a-971033.html

  49. As a result of chaos theory, weather and climate cannot be predicted, and how future climate will turn out will not be known until future is upon us. It would not help even if we knew the exact amount of greenhouse gases. Add to this the uncertainty about the future of the world. This should be clear to anyone, simply by moving back in time and contemplating what has unfolded from that viewpoint. As Daniel Boorstin put it: “The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge”. What is perhaps most worrying is the increased tendency of pseudo-science in climate research. This is revealed through the bias in publication records towards only reporting results that support one climate hypothesis, while refraining from publishing results that deviate. –Lennart Bengtsson, UppsalaInitiativet, 21 May 2014

    http://uppsalainitiativet.blogspot.se/2014/05/guest-post-by-lennart-bengtsson-my-view.html

Comments are closed.