Over the past decade, we have seen many examples of what would be categorized as” team science” when it comes to suppressing ideas that are considered inconvenient or contrary to belief systems in climate science. Over at the blog Bishop Hill, one such example was illustrated today by an academic who describes himself as a statistician, who attracted the attention of “team science” by simply doing a straightforward and honest statistical analysis on ice core data.
He and his students did an analysis on Vostok ice core data, eliminated noise and seasonal variation, did the usual tests for statistical significance, noted what they had discovered and presented it to”a noted society”. The response of the society was shocking to say the least, so much so that this statistician considered leaving academia. Here are some excerpts:
During the analysis, we noticed many interesting features, especially during the present interglacial, which seems to have a ‘seasonality’. We estimated the seasonality and proceeded to remove it, using a technique I teach in their course, in order to find the underlying trend.
Having done this, we noted that not only was there underlying further seasonality and cycles, but that firstly the temperature according to the proxy record was considerably below its maximum and also secondly that the temperature was rapidly decreasing.
Next we looked at the carbon dioxide content. The CO2 data was quite sparse, and certainly not enough for a final year student to conduct any form of correlation with the temperature, which followed each other. On researching this correlation, we were surprised to learn that the change in CO2 lags the change in temperature by between 200 and 1000 years.
These findings were presented at a small conference at one of the major learned societies.
…
Several months afterwards, the society’s ‘newsletter’ was published. It contained a special section on the conference at which I had spoken, with a brief description of each talk, the work behind it, and with thanks offered to each speaker. I searched for my name – nothing. My presentation was ignored in its entirety.
Climate skeptics are often described by the proponents of global warming as being” anti-– science”. Yet, here we have probably the most blatant example of anti-science behavior on display.
You can read the entire article at the Bishop Hill blog here:
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2014/6/16/on-entering-the-climate-arena.html
It is well worth your time.
It is unfortunate though, that this academic has chosen not to identify himself and to speak up to his colleagues about this treatment and behavior. Doing so is the only way to push back against this sort of censorship of science.
Man is the only creature that bites the hand that feeds it.
They are just being animalistic in nature. They will not go against the body that supplies their funding – the government.
Surprised? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srw3RdiIlrQ
[Add a few words of explanation, please. ~mod.]
The fact that they chose suppression rather than examination / debunking is revealing of their understanding of the issue. The understand that many facts do not support and actually undermine their position. When they make that choice, they are actually conceding the fact while trying to hide it. Denial?
The insincerity of those demanding that Lone wolf reveals his name and the other specifics takes away from whatever point they are trying to make.
It is well established, both from cliamtegate emails and recent history that the so-called team are ruthless bigots who will harass and seek to damage anyone with the temerity to openly stand up to their dogmatic extremism.
Lone Wolf’s story at the very least fits in well with how climate obsessed true believers behave.
It is disappointing to see less than sincere behavior by believers posting here.
My father, Dr. Aden B. Meinel, founder of many observatories including the McMath Solar Observatory on Kitt Peak, was CENSORED too, in the last years of his life when he began to warn everyone that the sun was going into a Maunder Minimum or worse.
All the major publications including Scientific American and Nature refused his articles about this. He was shocked. He couldn’t believe the malice they showed. One editor from Nature magazine wrote an email which my father showed me, saying, ‘We CAN’T let this information out because it would upset TOO MANY PEOPLE.’
Eugene WR Gallun on June 16, 2014 at 6:48 am
Cooking tip it took me fifty years to figure out.
To make hot cocoa I had always bought milk and some type of chocolate powder or liquid and mixed them together and then heated them. My great discovery is — after fifty years of doing that?You can buy chocolate milk and just heat that in the microwave.
Thanks, I’ll try that. Our girls like hot chocolate last thing as a BDT (bed delaying tactic).
This does not add up: sparse + not enough = we were surprised to learn
It’s a trap!
“The CO2 data was quite sparse, and certainly not enough for a final year student to conduct any form of correlation with the temperature, which followed each other. On researching this correlation, we were surprised to learn that the change in CO2 lags the change in temperature by between 200 and 1000 years.”
fhhaynie:
http://www.kidswincom.net/climate.pdf
Thank you for the link. Have you published or tried to publish the work?
I second rhchardscourtney’s suggestion that you break it into parts and post it here.
“certainly not enough…to conduct any form of correlation….On researching this correlation….”
Yes, I found that a bit self-contradictory too.
Cooking tip it took me fifty years to figure out.
To make hot cocoa I had always bought milk and some type of chocolate powder or liquid and mixed them together and then heated them. My great discovery is — after fifty years of doing that? You can buy chocolate milk and just heat that in the microwave.
Eugene WR Gallun
Nope. It ain’t the same. I am a great fan of chocolate milk, dating back to the days when milkshakes were made using unpasteurized milk and in metal containers. (Yum!)
I’d often wondered why I could only drink a small bottle of ‘bought chocolate milk’ before feeling very unsatisfied, and sometimes slightly nauseated, but could easily down a couple of good cold freshly made milkshakes. (Yes, they are still good in the more recent ‘pasteurized’ times).
Then, one day, I was set a task looking for markets for seaweed based products. In the process I learned about Carrageenans (or carrageenins) “…a family of linear sulfated polysaccharides that are extracted from red edible seaweeds. They are widely used in the food industry, for their gelling, thickening, and stabilizing properties…”
….has undergone many long-term dietary studies under defined regulatory conditions en route to its current global regulatory status. While some indicate that carrageenan safely passes through rat GI tracts without adverse effect when it is a dietary ingredient,…other animal dietary studies have observed colitis-like disease and tumor promotion…. In the late 2000s, some scientists raised concerns about whether the amount of “degraded carrageenan” (poligeenan) in food-grade carrageenan may lead to health problems, leading to a debate in the research literature….. It is yet to be determined whether such observations are pertinent to dietary safety considerations….
Europe prohibits the use of carrageenan in infant formula, organic or otherwise, for precautionary reasons,[5] but allows it otherwise. In the U.S., it is permitted in organic foods, including juices, chocolate milk, and organic infant formula, as well as other types of foods. (all from Wikipedia for quick ref: For those who like to sneer at Wikipedia, you can go there and look up the original refs if you wish.)
Listed in foods as E 407. It is in almost all packaged flavoured milk/dairy and some soy products. Sometimes it is listed as a ‘natural stabilizer’.
There are some claims online that carrageenan causes nausea and bloating. I’d agree.
I’m not too worried about the health aspects of it. I just find now I never bother to buy the packaged milk drinks any more: I realized I don’t enjoy them, and I suspect I have found the reason.
My recipe? (Don’t use “Chocolate Milk Drink” powders, they are likely to have it in there as a thickener). Two (yep) teaspoons of cocoa powder, 1.5 teaspoons of sugar, 1 teaspoon of milo – a splash of hot water, stir then throw in two ice cubes and keep mixing (mixes smoooooth, I don’t know why!) Then top up with hot or cold milk as required. When you have finished drinking it, make a second one, and drink that too.
[The mods can figure out what “cocoa” and “ice cubes” are, but what is “milo”? 8<) .mod]
Very similar to the shenanigans by the editors and reviewers at AAAS and AGU these days. After all AGU expunged the word Geophysical and derivatives from its hallowed (now hollow) by-laws. And then one should not be surprised because both AAAS and AGU are political instruments of the U.S. President and D.C. culture-think.
Eugene WR Gallun says:
June 16, 2014 at 6:48 am
The JONOVA post that is causing a stir:
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/big-news-part-ii-for-the-first-time-a-mysterious-notch-filter-found-in-the-climate/
Moderator:
You say;
[The mods can figure out what “cocoa” and “ice cubes” are, but what is “milo”? 8<) .mod]
Please try not to press your question because that will only encourage them to debate the mysteries of Bovril and Marmite. And then the Scots may join in to extol Irn Bru. Followed by ….
Richard
[The mods can figure out what “cocoa” and “ice cubes” are, but what is “milo”? 8<) .mod]
I am glad you asked! (…and thank you for not snipping such an important comment)
Milo: Very popular in Oz, and much nicer than vegemite.
Milo /ˈmaɪloʊ/ is a chocolate and malt powder which is mixed with hot or cold water or milk to produce a beverage popular in many parts of the world. Produced by Nestlé, Milo was originally developed by Thomas Mayne in Sydney, Australia in 1934. "[1] It is marketed and sold in many countries around the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milo_%28drink%29
Most commonly sold as a powder in a green tin, often depicting various sporting activities, Milo is available as a premixed beverage in some countries, and has been subsequently developed into a snack bar and breakfast cereal. (Wikipedia …. again…) 😉
Milo – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milo_(drink)
Oh, this needed a 😉
…I am glad you asked! (…and thank you for not snipping such an important comment) ;-D
emsnews says:
My father… was CENSORED too… All the major publications including Scientific American and Nature refused his articles about this. He was shocked. He couldn’t believe the malice they showed.
I was recently censored by ScAm when I tried to post this, verbatim:
The ScAm moderator deleted that comment, specifically for “name calling”. But where was there any name-calling?
I view ScAm as simply a propaganda organ. It is owned and run by German greens, and they allow no contrary opinion. Very much like the Daily Worker.
From philjourdan June 16, 2014 at 8:02 am:
I take this to mean you have insufficient experience feeding many common animals like dogs, cats, hamsters, gerbils. Chickens would be pecking the hand. Does it only count when the hand is actively trying to feed the creature? You could try holding a chunk of raw meat while you approach a shark, or alligator or crocodile, or a furry cuddly possum. Give a dead mouse to a viper. Offering a cricket to a tarantula is also interesting, although technically that wouldn’t be biting.
@kadaka
I guess you have never heard the cliche. It does not refer to the actual action of feeding, but of helping. I have not tried to feed sharks and alligators – perhaps that is why I am not known as lefty.
I just read fhhaney’s link with joy and complete comprehension! Its not only an amazing demonstration of scientific inquiry and dedication, it’s written in terms that anyone can understand and is thus freaking brilliant!
This needs publication. And spreading! And liking! And other such modes of transfer!
I’m secptical about this. This is not new, thus not Earth shattering. Why would this be suppressed?
Why was he “surprised to learn”? Maybe someone can help me get a better picture on this dubious story.
This post is yet another example (must be millions by now) of the climate alarmists using underhanded and immoral tactics rather than try to debunk any analysis that goes against their religion. What is weird is that this is old news to many who have followed the climate debate from the beginning.
We know that warming comes first and then a rise in CO2 and that CO2 has been has been 10 to 20 times higher in the past than it is now. The reason is very clear and the mechanism is known. Seems that a warmer ocean gives off more CO2 due to decreased solubility (1), and more warmth also gives rise to more vegetation growth which gives off CO2 as part of its nature: facts that argue well for having more atmospheric CO2 because the world warms. Now the “scientists” could try to debunk these things or they could do their best to ignore or otherwise conflate them with other issues. I think it is telling that they went for hiding the issue.
(1)
Tales such as this will become ever more common as the Cause unwinds.
The petty authoritarianism, arrogant deletion of comments and inquiries that countered the belief and the vile name calling that make up the academic wing of the Cult of Calamitous Climate, starring the magic gas, have left many abused and shell shocked citizens.
Toward the end, as public demands for retribution grow, the henchmen will be citing examples of their own “scepticism” and blaming their colleges for “making them” behave unethically.
Milo tastes like malt balls which is a defilement of chocolate. Give me chocolate or give me death.
By the way, how is the newsletter’s decision to not thank the presenter and his students in any way encouraging young scholars to decide on a science career???? I’ve got some great potential scientists coming your way (students who would rather find some amazing substance in a lab than fritter away the afternoon engaging in mindless social blathering). It rightly rankles me red feathers to find out a “learned society’s” newsletter on the conference would do such a thing.
And don’t mix malt with chocolate. Ever.
fhhaynie says:
June 16, 2014 at 6:36 am
I haven’t studied this in detail but one question which jumps out fairly early is: how do you infer a 305-year cycle from CO2 flask data going back to just 1958 (your presentation pages 5-7)?
Chocolate and malt–a marriage made in Heaven! Almost the equal of a good BLT.