Page 9 of 15 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 149

Thread: Scientists in cover-up of ‘damaging’ climate view[W:38:145]

  1. #81
    Left the building
    Fearandloathing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada Dual citizen
    Last Seen
    12-09-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,367

    Re: Scientists in cover-up of ‘damaging’ climate view[W:38]

    Quote Originally Posted by zimmer View Post
    That sort of deflection seems to be pretty much all she is capable of.


    This is my problem with many issues today, warmism being one of them. If an idea has merit, it will over time be accepted and tried, the "proof" will be evident and not need angry rebuttals, deflections, screaming "denier" at those who ask questions or come up with different results. When that happens in accounting, law, even gardening you generally re-check your own figures. In the Warmist religion that's heresy and you get kicked out.

    Many ideas have come and gone in my lifetime, Thalidomide was supposed to be a cure for morning sickness and created babies with fins

    Thalidomide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Henry Ford was laughed at for his concept of the production line and complex things like automobiles, Alex Bell had to move to Canada to finish work on his tele voice machine, and with the coming of the aviation age came the "settled" science that man would not survive flying faster than sound, if it were possible.

    Beliefs that did not have to shout down and demonize their questioners, but in Ford's case helped him re-define what he was doing, make it better.

    Throughout history, there has never been a good idea that had to use threats and bullying to make its case, only such things as failed religions and ideologies that have to use force and walls to keep believers in line.

    In the end, there are far too many uncomfortable similarities between Warmism and Jim Jones' Cool Aid drinkers.
    ""You know, when we sell to other countries, even if they're allies -- you never know about an ally. An ally can turn."
    Donald Trump, 11/23/17

  2. #82
    Sage
    polgara's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    18,335

    Re: Scientists in cover-up of ‘damaging’ climate view[W:38]

    Quote Originally Posted by Fearandloathing View Post
    This is my problem with many issues today, warmism being one of them. If an idea has merit, it will over time be accepted and tried, the "proof" will be evident and not need angry rebuttals, deflections, screaming "denier" at those who ask questions or come up with different results. When that happens in accounting, law, even gardening you generally re-check your own figures. In the Warmist religion that's heresy and you get kicked out.

    Many ideas have come and gone in my lifetime, Thalidomide was supposed to be a cure for morning sickness and created babies with fins

    Thalidomide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Henry Ford was laughed at for his concept of the production line and complex things like automobiles, Alex Bell had to move to Canada to finish work on his tele voice machine, and with the coming of the aviation age came the "settled" science that man would not survive flying faster than sound, if it were possible.

    Beliefs that did not have to shout down and demonize their questioners, but in Ford's case helped him re-define what he was doing, make it better.

    Throughout history, there has never been a good idea that had to use threats and bullying to make its case, only such things as failed religions and ideologies that have to use force and walls to keep believers in line.

    In the end, there are far too many uncomfortable similarities between Warmism and Jim Jones' Cool Aid drinkers.
    This won't work for long - too many people are becoming aware of the facts, and they will fight back. The insistence of the UN and the IPCC that we are warming, when we have had over 17 years of proven cooling - only makes their blah, blah, blah look idiotic!

    Greetings, F&L.

  3. #83
    Left the building
    Fearandloathing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Vancouver, Canada Dual citizen
    Last Seen
    12-09-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,367

    Re: Scientists in cover-up of ‘damaging’ climate view[W:38]

    Quote Originally Posted by polgara View Post
    This won't work for long - too many people are becoming aware of the facts, and they will fight back. The insistence of the UN and the IPCC that we are warming, when we have had over 17 years of proven cooling - only makes their blah, blah, blah look idiotic!

    Greetings, F&L.


    The great danger to humanity is not that we will burn up our own planet, but that we de-evolved into such stupid beings as to believe the claim in the first place.

    17 years, think about that. Next year, people who have never known warming will be beginning to vote. 17 years, more than half the time global warming has been funded by governments....

    So, based on data collected under the fall of the Soviet Union, data not collected at all across the other half of the planet's north, Canada, and some "research" by people whose income and livelihood is absolutely dependent on there being a problem, that is "settled science."

    Oh well, there is an up side. A friend of mine has started an extreme tourism adventure company where they are proposing to helicopter rich environmentalists onto a receding glacier so they can camp there overnight. The marketing is awesome "...last chance to be on a disappearing glacier"....and all that.

    It's not a glacier though, it's a semi-permanent ice field, but it sure LOOKS like doom, big ant hill like caverns carve by the sun....about $5,000 a person.

    Obama was right, there is money to be made in the environmental arena.
    ""You know, when we sell to other countries, even if they're allies -- you never know about an ally. An ally can turn."
    Donald Trump, 11/23/17

  4. #84
    Mod Conspiracy Theorist
    rocket88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    A very blue state
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,125

    Re: Scientists in cover-up of ‘damaging’ climate view[W:38]

    Quote Originally Posted by zimmer View Post
    You are MIA... I was expecting your WND dissection. Seems you have no complaints about what they have written.

    Here is the piece: New global-warming skeptic fears for ‘safety’






    "There are no facts put forth as to why he would feel that way..." ???

    Sure there are, and he tells people what they are. He goes on to claim these supposed "scientists" are McCarthy-like. No small swat across the chops of some supposed "scientists".

    Norman Rockwell once painted series called The Four Freedoms. It was based on words from the Libs Super Hero Franklin Roosevelt.

    What were the Libs Super Hero's Four Freedoms???

    1. The Freedom of Speech.

    2. The Freedom of Worship.

    3. The Freedom from Want.

    4. The Freedom from Fear.

    But when it comes to the Grüne Armee Faktion, und protekting zee Religion ov glohball varmingk... fear is just a figment of someone's imagination.
    He didn't put forth any facts or anything that actually happened to him. Just his feelings and your typical non-sensical rants. Which is sadly what I've come to expect from cons around here. The people that brought you intelligent people like George Will have devolved into zimmer.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    This issue has been plowed more times than Paris Hilton.
    Quote Originally Posted by Oborosen View Post
    Too bad we have to observe human rights.

  5. #85
    Wrinkly member
    Manc Skipper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Southern England
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    23,148

    Re: Scientists in cover-up of ‘damaging’ climate view[W:38]

    Quote Originally Posted by polgara View Post
    This won't work for long - too many people are becoming aware of the facts, and they will fight back. The insistence of the UN and the IPCC that we are warming, when we have had over 17 years of proven cooling - only makes their blah, blah, blah look idiotic!

    Greetings, F&L.
    The facts are that a quarter of the American population (a shockingly large minority) have been duped into not accepting the reality of AGW because it's not convenient to their unsustainable lifestyle.
    Don't work out, work in.

    Never eat anything that's served in a bucket.

  6. #86
    Mod Conspiracy Theorist
    rocket88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    A very blue state
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,125

    Re: Scientists in cover-up of ‘damaging’ climate view[W:38]

    Quote Originally Posted by Manc Skipper View Post
    The facts are that a quarter of the American population (a shockingly large minority) have been duped into not accepting the reality of AGW because it's not convenient to their unsustainable lifestyle.
    Unfortunately there's another quarter that buys it all with equally religious fervor. That seems to be all that ever happens. 20 years of cooling and 20 years of warming trends don't make climate. Even if you accept that climate is changing, there's still the fact that it does change naturally over time, and it hasn't yet been proven that's not happening.


    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    This issue has been plowed more times than Paris Hilton.
    Quote Originally Posted by Oborosen View Post
    Too bad we have to observe human rights.

  7. #87
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Last Seen
    06-13-15 @ 10:52 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,460

    Re: Scientists in cover-up of ‘damaging’ climate view[W:38]

    This thread is hilarious.

    If you are going to use a blog as a source, how about a blog which actually discusses the so-called 'study' the 79 year old Swedish scientist tried to get published and why it got rejected?


    HotWhopper: Denier weirdness: Ignominious legacy of a climate scientist

    "the IOP, the publisher of the journal in question, Environmental Research Letters, has come right out and shown that the paper was without merit. They've published one of the referee's reports in full and are seeking permission to publish the others as well."

    The IOP press release states:

    "The draft journal paper by Lennart Bengtsson that Environmental Research Letters declined to publish, which was the subject of this morning’s front page story of The Times, contained errors, in our view did not provide a significant advancement in the field, and therefore could not be published in the journal."

    Lennart's "paper" didn't just contain errors, it didn't even include any research from the look of things. It was just an article about already published research. Turns out that Lennart's so-called scientific paper was nothing more than a bit of denialist propaganda, about on par with articles by the usual quacks in Quadrant magazine (Bob Carter etc). Based on the referee's report that was published, it looks as if all that Lennart did was say "ooh, there are some differences between climate sensitivity calculations published in different papers so "something must be wrong"" (nefarious intent-style), without bothering to look at the reasons for differences.

    Here are some excerpts from one of the referee's reports:


    "The manuscript uses a simple energy budget equation (as employed e.g. by Gregory et al 2004, 2008, Otto et al 2013) to test the consistency between three recent "assessments" of radiative forcing and climate sensitivity (not really equilibrium climate sensitivity in the case of observational studies).

    ...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.

    ...What a paper with this message should have done instead is recognising and explaining a series of "reasons" and "causes" for the differences.

    ...The IPCC process itself explains potential inconsistencies under the strict requirement of a simplistic energy balance: The different estimates for temperature, heat uptake, forcing, and ECS and TCR are made within different working groups, at slightly different points in time, and with potentially different emphasis on different data sources. The IPCC estimates of different quantities are not based on single data sources, nor on a fixed set of models, but by construction are expert based assessments based on a multitude of sources. Hence the expectation that all expert estimates are completely consistent within a simple energy balance model is unfounded from the beginning."

    This Hotwhopper blog also highlights the stupidity of people who post on the conspiracy blog - WUWT - (including the owner of the blog Anthony Watts) or gullibly swallow and regurgitate whatever they read there.

    Of course if people actually wanted the facts about climate science they could try reading the published research themselves instead of what random bloggers on the internet, shock jocks and infotainment sources claim.
    Last edited by Ceist; 05-17-14 at 10:55 PM.

  8. #88
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Last Seen
    06-13-15 @ 10:52 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,460

    Re: Scientists in cover-up of ‘damaging’ climate view[W:38]

    Or how about a direct link to a press release by the publishers of the Journal itself?


    Statement from IOP Publishing on story in The Times


    Dr. Nicola Gulley, Editorial Director at IOP Publishing, says, “The draft journal paper by Lennart Bengtsson that Environmental Research Letters declined to publish, which was the subject of this morning’s front page story of The Times, contained errors, in our view did not provide a significant advancement in the field, and therefore could not be published in the journal.”

    “The decision not to publish had absolutely nothing to do with any ‘activism’ on the part of the reviewers or the journal, as suggested in The Times’ article; the rejection was solely based on the content of the paper not meeting the journal’s high editorial standards, ” she continues.

    “The referees selected to review this paper were of the highest calibre and are respected members of the international science community. The comments taken from the referee reports were taken out of context and therefore, in the interests of transparency, we have worked with the reviewers to make the full reports available.”

    The full quote actually said “Summarising, the simplistic comparison of ranges from AR4, AR5, and Otto et al, combined with the statement they are inconsistent is less then helpful, actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of "errors" and worse from the climate sceptics media side.”

    “As the referees report states, ‘The overall innovation of the manuscript is very low.’ This means that the study does not meet ERL’s requirement for papers to significantly advance knowledge of the field.”

    “Far from denying the validity of Bengtsson’s questions, the referees encouraged the authors to provide more innovative ways of undertaking the research to create a useful advance.”

    “As the report reads, ‘A careful, constructive, and comprehensive analysis of what these ranges mean, and how they come to be different, and what underlying problems these comparisons bring would indeed be a valuable contribution to the debate.”

    “Far from hounding ‘dissenting’ views from the field, Environmental Research Letters positively encourages genuine scientific innovation that can shed light on complicated climate science.”

    “The journal Environmental Research Letters is respected by the scientific community because it plays a valuable role in the advancement of environmental science – for unabashedly not publishing oversimplified claims about environmental science, and encouraging scientific debate.”

    “With current debate around the dangers of providing a false sense of ‘balance’ on a topic as societally important as climate change, we’re quite astonished that The Times has taken the decision to put such a non-story on its front page.”

    Please find the reviewer report below quoted in The Times, exactly as sent to Lennart Bengtsson.

    We are getting permission from the other referees for this paper to make their reports available as soon as possible.

  9. #89
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Last Seen
    06-13-15 @ 10:52 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,460

    Re: Scientists in cover-up of ‘damaging’ climate view[W:38]

    And the particular referee's report in full - which was misrepresented by Lennart Bengtsson in the Times article (and misrepresented on the WUWT blog):

    REFEREE REPORT(S):

    COMMENTS TO THE AUTHOR(S)
    The manuscript uses a simple energy budget equation (as employed e.g. by Gregory et al 2004, 2008, Otto et al 2013) to test the consistency between three recent "assessments" of radiative forcing and climate sensitivity (not really equilibrium climate sensitivity in the case of observational studies).

    The study finds significant differences between the three assessments and also finds that the independent assessments of forcing and climate sensitivity within AR5 are not consistent if one assumes the simple energy balance model to be a perfect description of reality.

    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.

    - The comparison between observation based estimates of ECS and TCR (which would have been far more interesting and less impacted by the large uncertainty about the heat content change relative to the 19th century) and model based estimates is comparing apples and pears, as the models are calculating true global means, whereas the observations have limited coverage. This difference has been emphasised in a recent contribution by Kevin Cowtan, 2013.

    - The differences in the forcing estimates used e.g. between Otto et al 2013 and AR5 are not some "unexplainable change of mind of the same group of authors" but are following different tow different logics, and also two different (if only slightly) methods of compiling aggregate uncertainties relative to the reference period, i.e. the Otto et al forcing is deliberately "adjusted" to represent more closely recent observations, whereas AR5 has not put so much weight on these satellite observations, due to still persisting potential problems with this new technology

    - The IPCC process itself explains potential inconsistencies under the strict requirement of a simplistic energy balance: The different estimates for temperature, heat uptake, forcing, and ECS and TCR are made within different working groups, at slightly different points in time, and with potentially different emphasis on different data sources. The IPCC estimates of different quantities are not based on single data sources, nor on a fixed set of models, but by construction by expert based assessments based on a multitude of sources. Hence the expectation that all expert estimates are completely consistent within a simple energy balance model is unfounded from the beginning.

    - Even more so, as the very application of the Kappa model (the simple energy balance model employed in this work, in Otto et al, and Gregory 2004) comes with a note of caution, as it is well known (and stated in all these studies) to underestimate ECS, compared to a model with more time-scales and potential non-linearities (hence again no wonder that CMIP5 doesn't fit the same ranges)


    Summarising, the simplistic comparison of ranges from AR4, AR5, and Otto et al, combined with the statement they they are inconsistent is less then helpful, actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of "errors" and worse from the climate sceptics media side.


    One cannot and should not simply interpret the IPCCs ranges for AR4 or 5 as confidence intervals or pdfs and hence they are not directly comparable to observation based intervals (as e.g. in Otto et al).

    In the same way that one cannot expect a nice fit between observational studies and the CMIP5 models.

    A careful, constructive, and comprehensive analysis of what these ranges mean, and how they come to be different, and what underlying problems these comparisons bring would indeed be a valuable contribution to the debate.

    I have rated the potential impact in the field as high, but I have to emphasise that this would be a strongly negative impact, as it does not clarify anything but puts up the (false) claim of some big inconsistency, where no consistency was to be expected in the first place.
    And I can't see an honest attempt of constructive explanation in the manuscript.

    Thus I would strongly advise rejecting the manuscript in its current form.
    Statement from IOP Publishing on story in The Times

    It looks like the other peer-reviewers reports will be available as soon as they give permission to the publishers. The AGW denier conspiracy theorists may regret demanding these reviewer reports be made public. As usual, the facts don't actually fit their hysterical conspiracy claims - at all.
    Last edited by Ceist; 05-17-14 at 11:17 PM.

  10. #90
    Sage
    Renae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    San Antonio Texas
    Last Seen
    10-23-17 @ 10:14 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    38,972
    Blog Entries
    15

    Re: Scientists in cover-up of ‘damaging’ climate view[W:38]

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Your link takes me to a page that requires a subscription. Very impressive fail!
    The link to WND on your part was a bigger fail. Blame the source for wanting to get paid for their work...
    Climate, changes. It takes a particularly uneducated population to buy into the idea that it's their fault climate is changing and further political solutions can fix it.



Page 9 of 15 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •