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
@ur momisugly RCase says:
May 16, 2014 at 6:29 am
@ur momisugly 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…
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?
Has any other paper published this? I don’t have access to full article in The Times.
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
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
David A:
For some reason my link to your post did not appear: it is this
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/15/uk-times-headline-tomorrow-scientists-in-cover-up-of-damaging-climate-view-full-article/#comment-1637910
Richard
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.
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.
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.
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.
@ur momisugly 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.
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.
[snip – multi-page manifesto – not appropriate for this thread -mod]
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.
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.
“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’.