Climate Scientists Want to Ban Dissenting Views

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

SEPTEMBER 28, 2022

By Paul Homewood

A fundamentally flawed study claiming that scientific evidence of a climate crisis is lacking should be withdrawn from the peer-reviewed journal in which it was published, top climate scientists have told AFP.

Appearing earlier this year in The European Physical Journal Plus, published by Springer Nature, the study purports to review data on possible changes in the frequency or intensity of rainfall, cyclones, tornadoes, droughts and other extreme weather events.

It has been viewed thousands of times on social media and cited by some mainstream media, such as Sky News Australia.

“On the basis of observation data, the climate crisis that, according to many sources, we are experiencing today, in not evident,” reads the summary of the 20-page study.

Four prominent climate scientists contacted by AFP all said the study—of which they had been unaware—grossly manipulates data, cherry picking some facts and ignoring others that would contradict their discredited assertions.

“The paper gives the appearance of being specifically written to make the case that there is no climate crisis, rather than presenting an objective, comprehensive, up-to-date assessment,” said Richard Betts, Head of Climate Impacts Research at Britain’s Met Office.

The authors ignore the authoritative Intergovernmental Report on Climate Change (IPCC) report published a couple of months before their study was submitted to Springer Nature, Betts noted.

“Human-induced climate change is already affecting many weather and climate extremes in every region across the globe,” the IPCC concluded in that report.

“Evidence of observed changes in extremes such as heatwaves, heavy precipitation, droughts and tropical cyclones, and, in particular, their attribution to human influence, has strengthened” since the previous report eight years earlier, it said.

“They are writing this article in bad faith,” said Friederike Otto, a senior climatologist at the Grantham Institute for Climate Change and the Environment.

“They do not have a section on heat waves”—mentioned only in passing—”where the observed trends are so incredibly obvious”, Otto said.

https://phys.org/news/2022-09-scientists-urge-publisher-faulty-climate.html

Richard Betts, more than most people, should surely realise that this is not how you do science. If you disagree with a particular scientific study, you challenge it on a factual basis and point out exactly where it is flawed.

There is a well established method of doing this, which is to ask the Journal to print response to the original article. Normally the paper’s authors would of course have a right of reply. That is the way the real facts are established.

To simply demand that the Journal withdraws the paper is the worst sort of censorship, and reminds us all of the dark days of Climategate, when such practices were rife whenever anybody dared to challenge the climate establishment’s agenda.

The study they complain about, Alimonti et al, was covered by me here, and was actually a pretty level-headed, uncontroversial assessment of the actual data:

Betts refers to the IPCC, but despite the hyperbolic headlines of the Summary for Policymakers, there is actually nothing in last years AR6 which contradicts anything in this latest study.

It is ludicrous of Friederike Otto to highlight heatwaves, but not to acknowledge the corresponding reduction in extreme cold weather. Why do more heatwaves make a climate emergency, when more cold waves don’t?

Let’s look at some of the other “emergencies”, which Betts seems to be imagining:

1) Heavy Precipitation

It is generally accepted, and emphasised by the IPCC, that globally precipitation has increased since 1950, and this is recognised by the new paper:

IPCC AR6

But far from this being a bad thing, in many areas of the world it has actually served to relieve drought, for instance in the US, India, China and Central Asia.

In terms of floods however, the IPCC can find no evidence that they are getting worse, merely the usual regional changes we expect to see over time:

2) Droughts

As you might expect from increasing global precipitation, Alimonti et al find no evidence of increasing drought, indeed the opposite is true:

3) Tropical Cyclones

According to the IPCC themselves, there are no long term trends in TC activity, something which most hurricane experts agree with.

Betts is not in line with the science, if he maintains otherwise.

.

4) Weather Attribution Models

With all of the data contradicting claims of a climate emergency, what do Betts and co resort to? None other than those thoroughly discredited weather attribution models, which Otto herself is in charge of! (Otto, by the way, works for the The Grantham Institute for Climate Change, well known for stoking climate alarm, and has even written a book, “Angry Weather”, which purports to “link” bad weather with global warming!)

Who to believe? Computer models or the lying data?

What Climate Emergency?

Alimonti et al don’t deny that the world is a little bit warmer than a century ago, nor that the climate has been changing.

But after analysing the official data, they failed to find any evidence of a climate crisis. This is from the paper’s summary:

“On the basis of observation data, the climate crisis that, according to many sources, we are experiencing today, is not evident”

Betts and co may disagree, that is their prerogative. But if they do, they need to present the facts why, instead of blackmailing the The European Physical Journal Plus into withdrawing the paper.

5 49 votes
Article Rating
108 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
September 28, 2022 6:18 pm

But this is heresy, and might influence their continued funding! Doubleplus ungood crimethink!

Steve Case
Reply to  Tom Halla
September 28, 2022 8:07 pm

“Crimet think” As in Crimet Scientist Good one.

kim
Reply to  Steve Case
September 29, 2022 4:40 am

The heresy is to deny climate guilt.

It’s backwards: Anthropogenic warming will be net beneficial and anthropogenic greening would seem miraculous if not so easily understood.
The guilt is backwards. We deserve praise for out serendipitous release of this life-sustaining gas from its hydrocarbon manacles
Reparations?
Let’s have reparations for those carbon freedom fighters!
Nobels for SUV driving soccer moms as a class.
==========

kim
Reply to  Tom Halla
September 29, 2022 4:42 am

I’ve a nice slightly used suv for your Mom.
========

DMacKenzie
Reply to  Tom Halla
September 29, 2022 8:14 am

Thanks, Christopher. Much better than the usual Griff comment, so you have added to the quality of the site.

jeffery P
Reply to  Tom Halla
September 29, 2022 9:10 am

I thought this site was moderated.

Andrew
Reply to  Tom Halla
September 29, 2022 10:54 am

Is your ‘Friend mom’ hot?

and I don’t mean due to global warming.

wink wink nudge nudge

b.nice
Reply to  Tom Halla
September 29, 2022 1:17 pm

Internet pole dancing ?

kim
Reply to  b.nice
September 29, 2022 2:21 pm

Leading the pack, pole to pole.
=======

elphupphy
Reply to  Tom Halla
September 29, 2022 3:07 pm

Hi Christopher. Tell you mom I’ve developed a bad rash and she needs to go see her doctor.

Chris Hanley
September 28, 2022 6:24 pm

… Richard Betts, Head of Climate Impacts Research at Britain’s Met Office.

If there were no ‘climate crisis/emergency’ would Mr Betts have his no doubt well paid job? (rhet.).

Last edited 2 months ago by Chris Hanley
kim
Reply to  Chris Hanley
September 29, 2022 4:46 am

Picked for the job as premier propagandist or maybe for his ability to dissemble good science.
More money thrown at poor science, policy, and governance. May his neighbors shiver this winter and wonder at it all.
============

Streetcred
September 28, 2022 6:25 pm

Climate science discovery, Betts et al.

Scientific breakthrough.jpg
Moderately Cross of East Anglia
Reply to  Streetcred
September 29, 2022 12:53 am

Presiding over an organisation that thinks it is legitimate to use the runaway at one of the world’s busiest airports to claim record temperature readings.
A disgrace to science.

kim
Reply to  Moderately Cross of East Anglia
September 29, 2022 9:57 am

I spy an antiseptic baby and a prophylactic pup.
======

spren
September 28, 2022 6:33 pm

But isn’t this exactly what the climate liars have been doing for 40 years now? All they do is make declarations, and never provide any empirical facts to back up their claims. They say “humans are causing climate change that is burning the planet up.” And then they just dismiss anyone who disagrees or demands for them to prove their claims as “climate deniers.” They never provide any proof – because they don’t have any. Their only hope is to silence anyone who points out their idiotic nonsense.

Last edited 2 months ago by spren
Bill Parsons
September 28, 2022 6:42 pm

And if they didn’t have such a crackerjack point man for their cause I would be worried … Where’s Jackie? Anybody seen her? I was just talking to her.

Bill Parsons
Reply to  Bill Parsons
September 28, 2022 6:48 pm

Biden needs to find himself a nice rocking chair somewhere out of the limelight where he can sit and rock and mumble to himself… nice dog at his feet, named “Buck” or “Buddy”, occasional walks in the autumn air, nice natural gas fire in his faux fireplace.

Old Man Winter
Reply to  Bill Parsons
September 28, 2022 8:00 pm

REPORTER: “The confusing part is why, if she and the family is top of
mind, does the president think that she’s living and in the room?”

KJP: “I don’t find that confusing.”

R: “I have John Lennon top of mind just about every day but I’m not
looking around for him anywhere.”

https://twitter.com/townhallcom/status/1575192338330054657

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/matt-margolis/2022/09/28/awful-karine-jean-pierres-botches-spin-on-bidens-walorski-gaffe-n1633081

Bill Parsons
Reply to  Old Man Winter
September 28, 2022 9:35 pm

Something tells me he’s a lot closer to meeting up with Jackie than people think.

Rod Evans
Reply to  Bill Parsons
September 28, 2022 11:17 pm

Kamala has her fingers crossed.

kim
Reply to  Rod Evans
September 29, 2022 4:48 am

Not crossing her toes was Cameltoe’s modus operandos.
==========

Frank from NoVA
September 28, 2022 6:51 pm

‘Human-induced climate change is already affecting many weather and climate extremes in every region across the globe,” the IPCC concluded in that report.’

The first problem with this statement is that long-term, global, historical instrument records of temperature and precipitation just don’t exist. Yeah, there are some relatively long instrument records in some parts of the ‘West’, but outside of these enclaves, and certainly over the oceans, such records don’t exist. And the second problem with this statement is that absent data tampering, even these records don’t support the IPCC’s alarmist narrative.

Johne Morton
September 28, 2022 6:52 pm

“Climate Scientists Want to Ban Dissenting Views”

Whatever happened to the idea that a strong theory can stand on its own evidence?

dh-mtl
Reply to  Johne Morton
September 28, 2022 6:57 pm

If they want to ban dissenting views, then they are not scientists.

Questioning what is known is the first step in the scientific process.

atticman
Reply to  dh-mtl
September 29, 2022 2:41 am

And the second is admitting what you don’t.

MarkH
Reply to  Johne Morton
September 28, 2022 8:48 pm

If this doesn’t stop we are heading into a scientific dark age, a new Lysenkoism in various fields of science where no opinion other than the “consensus” opinion will be tolerated. Anyone who dares to even think of questioning the consensus, upon which the new authoritarian technocracy will be built, must be cast out. The stakes could not be much higher.

HOJO
Reply to  MarkH
September 29, 2022 8:56 am

To your point. The head of NZ at the UN just said all thoughts on any subject must come from the UN and all others must be shut down and stopped as it is wrecking the narrative. How do we fight this madness? On my phone this morning a headline said that Ian is a perfect example of CC . What the heck is happening to this world..

kim
Reply to  MarkH
September 29, 2022 10:26 am

Instead of liberating the world’s people the internet has enabled control of that populace by Narrative creation.
Rope and chains, after such promise.
============

MarkH
Reply to  kim
September 29, 2022 4:28 pm

While the internet has had negative consequences in many areas.. here we are, able to discuss these issues from wherever we are in the world because of the internet. The internet is a tool, one that delivers a reach to individuals far greater than they could ever imagine prior to its existence. I’d argue that it is, in net and despite the efforts of malign powers, a hugely beneficial tool for allowing widespread and open discussion of all manner of ideas. Granted, now days you have to scurry off into the dark corners of the internet to have truly open discussions as predominantly political and ideological censorship has dramatically risen. But just imagine the last few years without the internet, your only source of information being legacy media TV and news papers. You would likely have no idea of the insane things being pursued behind closed doors. The internet allows a sliver of light to shine in on them, and how the cockroaches scurry when it does.

Without the internet, you would just be unaware of the chains that bind you. But you’d still be in chains. As Goethe observed “None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.”

kim
Reply to  MarkH
September 30, 2022 6:56 am

Paradox paralyzed into perdition.
========

atticman
Reply to  Johne Morton
September 29, 2022 2:39 am

What evidence? (as an earlier correspondent pointed out).

ATheoK
Reply to  Johne Morton
September 29, 2022 5:35 pm

Whatever happened to the idea that a strong theory can stand on its own evidence?”

Contrary to actual betts’ evidence capability.

DRSulik
September 28, 2022 6:55 pm

Because they are not scientists and can not defend there MODELS.

Izaak Walton
September 28, 2022 7:42 pm

I am not sure that Paul Homewood read the article that he linked to. Compare the statement in the article saying that “Betts stopped short of calling for withdrawal, drawing a distinction between cherry-picking data and outright fraud.” which Paul’s statement that Betts and co are
blackmailing the The European Physical Journal Plus into withdrawing the paper”

It is also ironic that one of the other scientists quoted in the article’feared that striking the article from the journal would “lead to further publicity and could be presented as censorship”.’

So apparently stating clearly that the article should not be withdrawn and that doing so would
appear to be censorship get presented as censorship anyway. Talking about misrepresentation.

Simonsays
Reply to  Izaak Walton
September 28, 2022 8:28 pm

Nice use of cherry picking and misreperestation yourself. The use of mainstream media to shame the journal into removing the article is a form of blackmail.

The tactic is an obvious attempt that by gettimg some so called experts with fancy sounding titles to make disparaging comments not just about the paper but also the journals credibility it can force the withdrawal with a suitable grovelling apology.

It does get more direct where the linked article says:
All four of the experts consulted by AFP suggested that the study should never have been published in the first place, and two of them called for it to be withdrawn.


Izaak Walton
Reply to  Simonsays
September 28, 2022 9:57 pm

Simon,
they are not using the media to shame the journal nor to blackmail it. If you read the article firstly none of the scientists mentioned had even read the paper or were aware of it and so were hardly mounting a campaign against it. Secondly it is clear that it was the media who contacted the scientists and not the other way around.

So to be clear, the AFP contacted 4 scientists none of whom had read the paper or were even aware of it. Two of the 4 also explicitly rejected a call for it to be withdrawn. This is hardly a convincing demonstrating that that climate scientists want to ban dissenting views.

Simonsays
Reply to  Izaak Walton
September 28, 2022 10:22 pm

It’s always the the media doing the hit job, but do you really think they found that article themselves flipping though the  The European Physical Journal in a doctors waiting room.

All 4 call for the article “should never had been published” , not to mention all the other disparaging comments about the journal and ad homion attacks on the authors. These experts could either do a former rebuttal on the science or go for the pile on. Why is it always the latter?

kim
Reply to  Izaak Walton
September 29, 2022 4:05 am

Walton waltzes proprioceptively impaired.
===========

kim
Reply to  kim
September 29, 2022 4:06 am

Isaac progressively flops.
======

D. J. Hawkins
Reply to  Izaak Walton
September 29, 2022 9:15 am

So by your own admission, 2 of the consultees hadn’t read the report, but still called for its retraction. You are double-plus an idiot.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Izaak Walton
September 29, 2022 2:10 pm

Two of the 4 also explicitly rejected a call for it to be withdrawn.

As I read it, two explicitly called for a withdrawal, one “stopped short of calling for a withdrawal,” and one apparently abstained from providing an opinion.

Last edited 1 month ago by Clyde Spencer
Chris Hanley
Reply to  Izaak Walton
September 28, 2022 8:43 pm

Hair-splitting.

kim
Reply to  Chris Hanley
September 29, 2022 4:08 am

Hare thee to the pile. Safety in numbers though they dig in dung.
========

Mark BLR
Reply to  Izaak Walton
September 29, 2022 3:27 am

I am not sure that Paul Homewood read the article that he linked to.

The first paragraph of the (phys.org) article that he linked to :

A fundamentally flawed study claiming that scientific evidence of a climate crisis is lacking should be withdrawn from the peer-reviewed journal in which it was published, top climate scientists have told AFP.

Just who is “misrepresenting” the situation here ?

NB : If Richard Betts wasn’t one of those explicitly calling for withdrawal, then clearly the AFP doesn’t consider him to be a “top” climate scientist … maybe they think he’s just a “bog standard” one ?

Richard Page
Reply to  Mark BLR
September 29, 2022 7:18 am

They are all below average. If they were ‘top’ climate scientists then they’d have gone into physics or oceanography or another meaningful field.

kim
Reply to  Richard Page
September 29, 2022 12:13 pm

It’s not rocket science.
Actually it’s way more complicated than that.
============

markl
September 28, 2022 7:42 pm

We liked to think it was grant money, being published, and attention were the reasons that “scientists” would ignore the scientific theory. Political attraction to AGW was considered a “conspiracy theory”. For those that believe it’s a conspiracy theory, do you still feel that way?

Mike
September 28, 2022 7:50 pm

The authors ignore the authoritative Intergovernmental Report on Climate Change (IPCC) report published a couple of months before their study was submitted to Springer Nature, Betts noted.
“Human-induced climate change is already affecting many weather and climate extremes in every region across the globe,” the IPCC concluded in that report.”

God give me the strength to endure these absolutely contemptible morons.

Last edited 2 months ago by Mike
Mike
September 28, 2022 7:53 pm

extremes such as heatwaves, heavy precipitation, droughts and tropical cyclones, and, in particular, their attribution to human influence, has strengthened”

What with ”attribution zombie science”? AAAAAhahahahahaha.

Mike
September 28, 2022 7:54 pm

“They do not have a section on heat waves”—mentioned only in passing—”where the observed trends are so incredibly obvious”,”

Bullshit!

Steve Case
September 28, 2022 8:08 pm

“Human-induced climate change is already affecting many weather and climate extremes in every region across the globe,” the IPCC concluded in that report.
“Evidence of observed changes in extremes such as heatwaves, heavy precipitation, droughts and tropical cyclones, and, in particular, their attribution to human influence, has strengthened” since the previous report eight years earlier, it said.
_____________________________________________________

Unsupported assertions

Old Man Winter
September 28, 2022 8:14 pm

Banning dissenting views is just doubling down on stupid- they already
claim science is settled which is the antithesis of science itself. I guess
that’s the only thing bullies can do when their models fail because of no
tropopausal hot spot!

Last edited 2 months ago by Old Man Winter
Joel Snider
September 28, 2022 10:46 pm

Climatology is just the tail of the dragon. PROGRESSIVES want to ban dissenting view – ALL dissenting views. And will, wherever they are not actively stopped.

Steve G
Reply to  Joel Snider
September 29, 2022 3:08 am

Yes — For the progressives and the deep green, those that do not question CAGW, this “existential crisis” has been caused by capitalism. For the true believers in the church of climate, capitalist industrialization and economic growth must be stopped.

Editor
Reply to  Steve G
September 29, 2022 3:37 am

Isn’t it odd that “progressives” are anti-progress.

kim
Reply to  Mike Jonas
September 29, 2022 3:51 am

Wear that Invisible Serf’s Collar with pride and joy. You will have universal authoritarian undiverse government and nothing else and you will like it.
Your virtue will have saved the Earth.
==========

Gregory Woods
Reply to  Mike Jonas
September 29, 2022 4:41 am

depends upon your definition of “progress’…

kim
Reply to  Steve G
September 29, 2022 4:10 am

Shut up, technocrats explain policy.
=======

Janice Moore
Reply to  kim
September 29, 2022 10:51 am

Heh. I first saw that quoted on Mark Steyn’s site about 10 years ago. Good one.

“’Shut up,’ he explained.”
― Ring Lardner

Last edited 1 month ago by Janice Moore
kim
Reply to  Janice Moore
September 29, 2022 12:14 pm

I can’t hear you.
========

Geoff Sherrington
September 28, 2022 11:05 pm

The only way that heatwaves are said by bad scientists to be increasing in frequency, becomoing hotter and longer id by data torture. The primary reference by a couple of Australian lady activists, Perkins and Lewis whose 2020 paper has data that starts at year 1950 and uses crafted definitions of heatwaves to reveal their fabricated conclusions.
I have studies 8 Australian cities, with their UHI included, for properties of heatwaves of duration 1, 3, 5 and 10 days. There is no firm evidence of heatwaves doing what activism claims.For the cities analysed, some with data back to the 1860s, there is a reduction in how hot they have become over the decades.
This is the primary data used in its simplest analysis. If it does not show a heating trend of the hottest heatwaves each year, then the trend soes not exist. There is no point trying to torture the data to show the opposite.
Geoff S
http://www.geoffstuff.com/eightheatwave2022.xlsx

Richard Brown
September 28, 2022 11:20 pm

Betts is trying to make himself relevant again……the pillock.

kim
Reply to  Richard Brown
September 29, 2022 3:58 am

Betts the Pillock thinks this the hillock to die on today. Little does he know his use-by date is lost in the lies of the last decade.
=============

Jeff Reppun
September 28, 2022 11:22 pm

After downloading the EPA 1895-2021 Heatwave index data, I then looked for the 30 year average index trends to separate climate trends from weather variability. The results:

·       Highest 30 year running average was 1926 – 1955 with an average index value of .200. There was a 137% increase in heatwave index over that period.

·       The lowest 30 year average was 1958 – 1987 with an average index value of .043. There was a 78% decline in heatwave index over that that period.

·       The last 30 year running average index (1992 thru 2021) was .100. That represents a 77% increase in the 30 year average index over the period and about half the rate of increase seen between 1926 and 1955.

As is obvious, these trends don’t align well with CO2 increases, which IPCC acknowledges did not significantly increase until about 1950.

Last edited 2 months ago by Capt Jeff
Redge
September 28, 2022 11:32 pm

Four prominent climate scientists contacted by AFP all said the study—of which they had been unaware—grossly manipulates data, cherry picking some facts and ignoring others that would contradict their discredited assertions.

So these “prominent” climate seancers hadn’t previously seen the study but knew it was wrong.

From the article:

“It is not published in a climate journal—this is a common avenue taken by ‘climate sceptics’ in order to avoid peer review by real experts in the field.”

Seriously?

No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”

~ Einstein

MarkW
Reply to  Redge
September 29, 2022 9:22 am

Wasn’t it Jones who declared that he was going to keep dissenting papers out of the “Climate” journals, even if he had to change the meaning of peer review?

The fact that dissenting papers are not published in the so called Climate Journals only means that the gate keepers are doing their jobs.

Janice Moore
Reply to  MarkW
September 29, 2022 11:34 am

Yes, it was.

“Phil Jones famously said:

Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!” – Phil Jones 8/7/2004″

(Source: “Redefining the Scientific Method Because Climate Change Science Is Special,” by Indur M. Goklany, here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/03/redefining-the-scientific-method-because-climate-change-science-is-special/
)

Rod Evans
September 29, 2022 12:00 am

As the majority of studies accepted for publication by the scientific journals are claiming evidence for Man Made Climate Change is upon us. Why then, are are they so anxious about the occasional study that manages to get published, which suggests that Man Made Climate Change is not evident?
Could it be the evidence for MMCC is so flaky so contrived it does not stand up to even the most basic challenge?
If the foundation the MMCC advocated stand on, is computer programming, i.e. future climate projections created in a computer model, then all they are actually arguing about is the efficacy/completeness of their algorithms.
The right of scientist to disagree is the core strength of science. Those who try to silence the ‘non believers’ are not scientists, they are cultists.

Greg
September 29, 2022 12:25 am

Betts et al avoid even giving the name of the paper they are slating which is quite a joke and reveals that they have long ago abandoned objective science and are simply involved advocacy.

However, I fail to see why Paul Holmwood also helps them in this respect. Unless it is well tucked away I can’t find a link to the paper, nor its title , nor a reference. If Mr Holmwood thinks it is a decent paper and writes as article about it, why does he not at least provide a link and proper ref and the end of the post :

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1140/epjp/s13360-021-02243-9.pdf
“A critical assessment of extreme events trends in times of global warming”
DOI:10.1140/epjp/s13360-021-02243-9

Last edited 2 months ago by Greg
kim
Reply to  Greg
September 29, 2022 3:59 am

Say my name, say my name.
========

Mr.
Reply to  kim
September 29, 2022 8:06 am

Heisenberg.

observa
September 29, 2022 12:34 am
kim
Reply to  observa
September 29, 2022 4:02 am

This Witch of the North and the South trembles at Jordan Peterson’s book but let’s stand on the library shelves Adolf Hitler’s tome on governance.
============

MarkW
Reply to  observa
September 29, 2022 9:25 am

First, any speech that the socialists disagreed with was re-labeled as hate speech.
When that turned out to be insufficient, they upped the ante and started calling it weapons of war.

kim
Reply to  MarkW
September 29, 2022 9:50 am

Woke Weapons of War.
=====

kim
Reply to  kim
September 29, 2022 9:52 am

Better, Woke Weapons of Mass Destruction.
They are Dementors.
=====

Dave Fair
Reply to  kim
September 29, 2022 11:38 am

Or kettle calling the pot black.

Dave Fair
Reply to  observa
September 29, 2022 11:36 am

Lets see, what is it called when government conspires with big business? Oh, yeah: Fascism, an offshoot of socialism.

kim
Reply to  Dave Fair
September 29, 2022 12:39 pm

The bundle of sticks for you, the renewable subsidies for the obedient and greedy.
============

Ben Vorlich
September 29, 2022 1:52 am

In a tweet Richard Betts claims he didn’t ask for the paper to be withdrawn.
As I wasn’t present at the discussion between him and the journalist I can’t say for sure if that’s the case. Nor would I like to put money who might be telling the truth, Both Journalists and Climate Scientists have a distant relationship with the truth at best

kim
Reply to  Ben Vorlich
September 29, 2022 2:39 am

Betts struggles.

He knows he tiptoes along the edge of ethical science yet still risks his credibility for the Cause.

How I wish climate science were unwashed with green and unhindered in the curiosity stakes.

Pielke Fils already made a mockery of the IPCC’s Summary on trends in natural events. He showed the chicanery of the Summary’s conclusions about weather catastrophes, who, like the poor, will always be with us and always be useful as misdirection for the ignorant.

But whoa Energy! Energy is the new Labor and all the old lies told about labor are being told now about energy.

The future historians of science will never run out of material to overhaul, rich as this scientific discipline has become encrusted with barnacular fables.

This science can’t run into the wind to save its soul; it crashes on reefs of reality.

Too many, including Betts, know the science is inadequate.
Still, we and future generations pay and will pay,
Endlessly Impoverished by poor science. The poor politics stinks too, so just stop.
==========

Dave Fair
Reply to  kim
September 29, 2022 11:41 am

Its too lucrative to stop. There are too many powerful snouts in that trough.

Mark BLR
September 29, 2022 3:53 am

… grossly manipulates data, cherry picking some facts and ignoring others that would contradict their discredited assertions

This has been done on the “alarmist” side since (at least) the “Chapter 8 Controversy” of the SAR (1995).

“The paper gives the appearance of being specifically written to make the case that there is no climate crisis, rather than presenting an objective, comprehensive, up-to-date assessment,” said Richard Betts, Head of Climate Impacts Research at Britain’s Met Office.

1) The AR6 WG-I assessment report, i.e. just the “Scientific Basis” part, is 3949 pages long.
Asking for a “comprehensive, up-to-date assessment”, or rebuttal, in a single paper counts as “unreasonable / impossible expectations”.

2) How many climate science papers were specifically written to make the following “case”, even if only subliminally ?
“Oh my $DEITY we’re all gonna diiiiiiiiiiiiiiiie ! ! !”

kim
Reply to  Mark BLR
September 29, 2022 4:03 am

This sadly true: Intellectually.
===========

Nik
September 29, 2022 5:10 am

A person who bans dissenting views is no scientist.

Andy Wilkins
September 29, 2022 5:32 am

From the article:

“I do not know this journal, but if it is a self-respecting one it should withdraw the article,” said Rahmstorf.

It appears Rahmstorf hasn’t read the paper, but still wants it withdrawn. That is not how any self respecting scientist should behave.

kim
Reply to  Andy Wilkins
September 29, 2022 6:27 am

Rahmstorf has no respect for anything but himself and the sentiment is misplaced there.
=============

Ed Zuiderwijk
September 29, 2022 6:04 am

Just look at their affiliations. The MET office, the Grantham institute. Together with the CRU of climategate fame, they form Climate Alarm Central. The believers in fairy farts are shocked? Oh dear.

kim
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
September 29, 2022 6:42 am

The Green Blob hates that man is greening the Earth. Don’t let the news out!
Hoi polloi won’t be able to stand the news that we are not all climate sinners, rather we are Gaia Preservers.
===========

Hivemind
September 29, 2022 6:45 am

You should be referring to them as climate ‘scientists’, since they are plainly not real scientists.

Joao Martins
September 29, 2022 6:49 am

Climate Scientists Want to Ban Dissenting Views
If they behave like that, we must ask:
Are they scientists?

Last edited 2 months ago by Joao Martins
Deva
September 29, 2022 8:38 am

Climate “Scientists”. Should be in quotes because if you can’t question and challenge things then it isn’t the scientific method and thus is NOT science. It is dogma. It might be Political “Science”.

kim
Reply to  Deva
September 29, 2022 9:49 am

It’s religion and sadly heretic.
I’ve said that Al Gore dropped out of Divinity School but only after learning how primitive shamans shamed and manipulated their devotees with weather guilt.
=======

September 29, 2022 11:17 am

Richard Betts, more than most people, should surely realise that this is not how you do science. If you disagree with a particular scientific study, you challenge it on a factual basis and point out exactly where it is flawed.

ya betts took the paul homewood approach

kim
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
September 29, 2022 12:16 pm

Moshe is envious.
Picked the wrong team off waivers.
===========

b.nice
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
September 29, 2022 1:44 pm

Mosh got bought out by Muller..

His integrity and relevance disappeared, never to be seen again.

kim
Reply to  b.nice
September 29, 2022 2:31 pm

And that’s being nice.
It’s the self betrayal that galls me.
I used to love Moshe. Still persists affection.
Now I seek him out to implore him to be think he might be wrong, in the Bowels of Christ.
He bet on the grey mare, he bet on the bay,
Had he bet on ol’ kim balls, he’d be a free man today.
He had great stuff once upon a time; even a computer poetry program to mention early days.
=========

kim
Reply to  kim
September 29, 2022 2:37 pm

A born technocrat(pen & phone heself) and is a long standing member of the lukewarming and do something chamber group at lucinda’s blog.
I understand the seduction of Muller‘a acumen, but they are both lame odds members of the climate energy confab.
Riding the wrong horse wrong way around the ring.
===========

kim
Reply to  kim
September 29, 2022 3:11 pm

Lucia’s
Forgive me. If it weren’t for getting old there would be no old times.
=========••

Mark BLR
Reply to  Steven M Mosher
September 30, 2022 3:09 am

Richard Betts, more than most people, should surely realise that this is not how you do science.

I finally took the time to slowly read the phys.org article all the way to the end, and found the following.

All four of the experts consulted by AFP suggested that the study should never have been published in the first place, and two of them called for it to be withdrawn.

“I do not know this journal, but if it is a self-respecting one it should withdraw the article,” said [ Stefan Rahmstorf, Head of Earth Systems at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research ].

Peter Cox, a professor of climate system dynamics at the University of Exeter, said the study “isn’t good scientifically”, but feared that striking the article from the journal would “lead to further publicity and could be presented as censorship”.

[ Friederike Otto, a senior climatologist at the Grantham Institute for Climate Change and the Environment ] shared this concern, but said the study should be repudiated all the same.
“If the journal cares about science they should withdraw it loudly and publicly, saying that it should not have been published.”

[ Richard Betts, Head of Climate Impacts Research at Britain’s Met Office ] stopped short of calling for withdrawal, drawing a distinction between cherry-picking data and outright fraud.

Stefan Rahmstorf (from the PIK) and Friederike Otto (the shovel ?) want the paper buried.

Peter Cox is worried about appearances more than getting a rebuttal published.

Richard Betts is somewhere between the two, presenting himself as “a wise sage sadly shaking their head”.

Clyde Spencer
September 29, 2022 1:58 pm

“They do not have a section on heat waves”—mentioned only in passing—”where the observed trends are so incredibly obvious”, Otto said.

Incredibly obvious?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/06/the-gestalt-of-heat-waves/

September 29, 2022 2:50 pm

Climate Scientists Want to Ban Science.

elphupphy
September 29, 2022 3:06 pm

Whether climate change and its’ causes are real or not, it’s a matter of First Amendment rights. Read the effing Constitution before whining about banning dissenting opinions. Enough of this stupid attempts at censoring speech. Do not go along with it. Speak your mind…. you have that right as a citizen.

Pat Frank
September 29, 2022 3:12 pm

Betts’ dismissive polemic reminds me of the hatchet-job SciAm did on Bjorn Lomborg when The Skeptical Environmentalist came out.

RickWill
September 29, 2022 3:36 pm

the world is a little bit warmer than a century ago

Not the entire “world” is warming.

The Southern Ocean has a long cooling trend. The Nino34 region has zero trend.

NCEP_Three_Trends.png
Alec Rawls
September 29, 2022 3:37 pm

The paper is actually very accommodating to the “dangerous human caused warming” hypothesis, apparently accepting the IPCC’s assertion that what warming has occurred since 1950 is primarily due to human activity, which is a ludicrous claim, given that the people who make it (the IPCC) offer no explanation whatsoever for the previous 250 years of warming.

“We don’t know what caused all the previous warming since the Little Ice Age, but we know that it ended in 1950!”

The paper is just about the difference between whether and climate, accepting all of the absurd climate assertions from the alarmists, but that is still not good enough for The Consensus. “Off with their heads!” cried the mad queen.

Michael S. Kelly
September 29, 2022 7:03 pm

For the love of God, STOP using this horrifying image!!!!!!!!!!

%d bloggers like this: