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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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
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.
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.
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
[snip – anti Semitic rant which has no place here, and is off-topic – mod]
Richard Branson: Global warming deniers ‘get out of our way’
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/10/richard-branson-global-warming-deniers-get-out-of-our-way/#ixzz2vlfnNKlW
So according to the first paragraph, we will be forced taxed by the UN climate tax to fund your investments.
Hey Branson, how’s it feel to be ‘like minded’ with left progressive US democrats and John Kerry?
yuk, get lost assh*le
Steven Goddard spots the gratuitous use of a totally unrelated house on fire in the science section version of this Times story:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/05/16/proof-that-intimidation-works/
Maybe they’re displaying the house of Climatology, subconsciously.
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.
[snip – anti Semitic rant which has no place here, and is off-topic – mod]
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….
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!
jimmi_the_dalek (May 15, 2014 at 5:06 pm) says of The Times:
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]
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:
DNC Chair Wasserman Schultz: The Democrat Carbon Tax Is Coming (Video)
Progressives Today ^ | May 15, 2014 | P.W. Adams
izen says at May 16, 2014 at 3:58 am
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.
Found it here. http://www.thegwpf.org/scientists-in-cover-up-of-damaging-climate-view/
” 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
CLIMATE MCCARTHYISM: THE SCANDAL GROWS James Delingpole, Breitbart
@- 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.
@- 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.”
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.
The journal has released one of the referee reports.
http://ioppublishing.org/newsDetails/statement-from-iop-publishing-on-story-in-the-times
It does contain the phrase quoted by the Times. It also contains a lot of comments about the poor and unoriginal standard of the paper.
It will be interesting to see the other referee reports.