Uh 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.
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
So when did The Times reveal Climategate and if not why not?
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……….
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.]
According to The Times…
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/page/Editorial%20Board
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
@Jeff.
“In the UK, it’s is also a possesive pronoun…”
No, it’s not. “Its” is the possessive pronoun.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/its
http://www.bristol.ac.uk/arts/exercises/grammar/grammar_tutorial/page_13.htm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/language/askaboutenglish/2009/02/090224_aae_its_page.shtml
Peter Gleick’s fingerprints all over this one? He does have “form”.
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.
If someone gets access to this article, it would be appreciated if you would post it. It seems you have to subscribe to The Times
The it’s its sideshow in pictures.
http://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/gallery/2014/may/13/bad-grammar-rogue-apostrophes-and-bizarre-spelling-in-pictures
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.
I tried to use Mike’s Times trick of googling the article title to bypass the paywall…no luck.
“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
“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.
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”?
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.
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.
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.
“less than helpful” – might clog the money spigot.
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
But Cosmos and John Oliver told me that it’s real and only an idiot would deny it!
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.
Notice how “Climate Change” and Political Correctness in general require a Police State to enforce “belief” in their views.
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.