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
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
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.”)
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.
Written by a REAL scientist.
Björn from sweden says:
May 22, 2014 at 11:33 am
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.
That will be the highest read post ever at Uppsalainitiativet.
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.
I wish Mr. Bengtsson had told his tormentors to get stuffed.
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.
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.
The comments there reflect a sad reality – the AGW camp remains incapable of understanding Bengtsson’s point.
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.
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.
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.
” 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.
Pointman says:
May 22, 2014 at 9:25 am
And from the link…
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?
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.
Or maybe only one scientist will be needed and it will be a short battle:
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.
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.
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
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
I just want him to ‘name names’