• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

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

SUMMARY
Yes Joe, nice cap you've got on... work here long? Cool... well Joe... I'll have 2 cheesburgers, a large coke, a side of fries with mayo (it's a thing I picked up in Europe). ...

What's this about?

Are you suggesting food service workers can't discuss anything on your level? How do you know that?

By the way, you misspelled "cheeseburgers."
 
Re: Scientists in cover-up of ‘damaging’ climate view[W:38]

Why is this not surprising?

These Religion of Enviromaniacism's gatekeepers and so many of their ardent followers remaind me of the jackals in The Omen. Rabid in their defense of their faith and savior.

I dare anyone to come up with a legitimate reason to show that these climate alarmist people are interested in the truth. When they try to suppress data, obviously they have an agenda other than the truth. If you can explain that, you should also be able the explain why the church was right and Galileo wrong about the center of the universe.
 
Re: Scientists in cover-up of ‘damaging’ climate view[W:38]

What's this about?

Are you suggesting food service workers can't discuss anything on your level? How do you know that?

By the way, you misspelled "cheeseburgers."

No, the majority of fastfood workers where I'm from don't even know who the **** the VP of the US is.... All they care about is 15 dollars an hour minimum wage because it seems they have made careers out of taking your order - which they will still ****up even if you paid them 50 bucks an hour minimum wage.

An idiot will always be an idiot and a wage increase cannot boost intelligence or production.
 
Re: Scientists in cover-up of ‘damaging’ climate view[W:38]

There is more, but not from our Socialist Propagandizing Media. Which is no surprise.

Worry about his health and safety!?

Seems like Algore's Green Shirts have learned a few things from the Reichsministerium für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda.

Change You Can Believe In. If not, vee haf vays to maik yu speeeek.

Hmmm... that link seems to... work fine!
 
Re: Scientists in cover-up of ‘damaging’ climate view[W:38]

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

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. :2wave:
 
Re: Scientists in cover-up of ‘damaging’ climate view[W:38]

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. :2wave:



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

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

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. :2wave:

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

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

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...
 
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 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 unfunded 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.


So, let me summarize the notes from the reviewers:

"This paper is trying to compare satellite, energy budgets and surface temperatures which are derived in entirely different ways, and even though they all are trying to describe the same thing it is perfectly natural that they all disagree. Settled Science! DENIED!! Now excuse us while we go and graft observational records on to the end of dubious climate models. TTFN!!"

This rejection is funny and I am embarrassed for people who post it as evidence. The Paper's purpose is to show that observational climate records and climate models are coming up with different results and the models are running too hot. The rejection here is that comparing the climate record with a model is wrong because they are derived through different methods.
 
Last edited:
Re: Scientists in cover-up of ‘damaging’ climate view[W:38]

So, let me summarize the notes from the reviewers:

"This paper is trying to compare satellite, energy budgets and surface temperatures which are derived in entirely different ways, and even though they all are trying to describe the same thing it is perfectly natural that they all disagree. Settled Science! DENIED!! Now excuse us while we go and graft observational records on to the end of dubious climate models. TTFN!!"

This rejection is funny and I am embarrassed for people who post it as evidence. The Paper's purpose is to show that observational climate records and climate models are coming up with different results and the models are running too hot. The rejection here is that comparing the climate record with a model is wrong because they are derived through different methods.

The 'summary' is more like: the Swedish scientist submitted a paper which contained errors, wasn't original, provided nothing to advance the science and contained unsupported misleading statements. Then instead of addressing the problems with the paper and resubmitting it, he ran off to the media to claim he was being victimised. Papers get rejected all the time in peer-review.
 
Last edited:
Re: Scientists in cover-up of ‘damaging’ climate view[W:38]

Let me give you a tip. Open your mind and read things and sources you disagree with..

I did. And sought to discover the credibility of your WND:

Finally, Sye noted that the federal funding Planned Parenthood receives is routinely audited to make sure it is spent appropriately.

Our ruling

WorldNetDaily wrote, "A U.S. Government Accountability Office report says Planned Parenthood Federation of America cannot find some $1.3 billion given to it by the federal government from 2002 through 2008." We found other websites making similar claims.

The GAO never reported that Planned Parenthood and its affiliates couldn’t find $1.3 billion. It simply said that Planned Parenthood spent $657.1 million. The GAO also didn’t say that there was any sort sort of discrepancy or that money was missing, as the headline on WorldNetDaily’s news report said. The website's conclusion was reached by looking at numbers not even mentioned in the GAO report.

In fact the statement conflates two different sets of numbers and is an extreme case of comparing apples to oranges, taking one number calculated by the GAO, and another calculated by adding numbers published in Planned Parenthood’s annual reports. The difference is what is claimed to be missing.

Planned Parenthood includes all federal, state and local money under the category "government grants and contracts" in its annual reports. The GAO only looked at direct federal funding and noted it was likely undercounting the amount Planned Parenthood receives.

The statement irresponsibly suggests misappropriation of federal funds without any evidence. That makes it not just false, but ridiculously so. As a result, we rate the statement Pants on Fire.

Planned Parenthood funding: Did the GAO really find millions missing? | PolitiFact

This isn't the only one. I don't care that they're conservative. I care about accuracy. When you site a source that can be shown to be inaccurate, there is no reason for anyone to accept that source. As we're nearly all novice, source credibility matters.
 
Re: Scientists in cover-up of ‘damaging’ climate view[W:38]

I thought this might be helpful:

Scientific vs. Social Consensus
Today, there is no doubt that a scientific consensus exists on the issue of climate change. Scientists have documented that anthropogenic sources of greenhouse gases are leading to a buildup in the atmosphere, which leads to a general warming of the global climate and an alteration in the statistical distribution of localized weather patterns over long periods of time. This assessment is endorsed by a large body of scientific agencies—including every one of the national scientific agencies of the G8 + 5 countries—and by the vast majority of climatologists. The majority of research articles published in refereed scientific journals also support this scientific assessment. Both the US National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science use the word “consensus” when describing the state of climate science.
And yet a social consensus on climate change does not exist. Surveys show that the American public’s belief in the science of climate change has mostly declined over the past five years, with large percentages of the population remaining skeptical of the science. Belief declined from 71 percent to 57 percent between April 2008 and October 2009, according to an October 2009 Pew Research Center poll; more recently, belief rose to 62 percent, according to a February 2012 report by the National Survey of American Public Opinion on Climate Change. Such a significant number of dissenters tells us that we do not have a set of socially accepted beliefs on climate change—beliefs that emerge, not from individual preferences, but from societal norms; beliefs that represent those on the political left, right, and center as well as those whose cultural identifications are urban, rural, religious, agnostic, young, old, ethnic, or racial.
Why is this so? Why do such large numbers of Americans reject the consensus of the scientific community? With upwards of two-thirds of Americans not clearly understanding science or the scientific process and fewer able to pass even a basic scientific literacy test, according to a 2009 California Academy of Sciences survey, we are left to wonder: How do people interpret and validate the opinions of the scientific community? The answers to this question can be found, not from the physical sciences, but from the social science disciplines of psychology, sociology, anthropology, and others.

Climate Science as Culture War | Stanford Social Innovation Review

I think reading the entire article would be most helpful.
 
Re: Scientists in cover-up of ‘damaging’ climate view[W:38]

The 'summary' is more like: the Swedish scientist submitted a paper which contained errors, wasn't original, provided nothing to advance the science and contained unsupported misleading statements. Then instead of addressing the problems with the paper and resubmitting it, he ran off to the media to claim he was being victimised. Papers get rejected all the time in peer-review.
It would be interesting to see the draft paper itself and the other reviewers reports.

It's fascinating how you claim to know the "Paper's purpose'' without having read it.

Please point out the errors listed in the reviewer notes.

I see a lot of excuses being made for why all these models are so different which is of course completely ignoring the point that these models are so different. The reviewers seem to have inexplicably forgotten that the whole purpose of these models is to be able to model observational data. If they all do their own thing independent of observed climate then they are all worthless.

It really doesn't matter WHY they are all wrong, just that they are. Bengtsson's paper made the assumption that models presented as being able to reconstruct climate should be able to match observed climate. The reviewers "error" was to claim that that is not the case. It's an amazingly foolish argument to make.

The paper ultimately was rejected because it wasn't a "breakthrough" study... but the vast majority of published studies are not "breakthrough" studies. I'm guessing the reviewers wouldn't be very pleased if all their future papers were held to such qualifications.

Also from the rejection:

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.

Gatekeeping. Pure and simple. Bengtsson was entirely accurate in his assessment. These models are sold to the public as being reasonable replicators of global climate given known forcing inputs. These models are where the IPCC and others derive their forcing estimations. If they are "expected" to be different from observed climate then they are "expected" to be wrong. If they are "expected" to be wrong then we can "expect" that their derived CO2 sensitivity is wrong.

Also from the rejection:

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.


... so they expect the impact to be "high", but the paper is not a breakthrough? They also call the claims of big inconsistencies as "false" after spending most of the rejection explaining why there are big inconsistencies.

Seriously, folks, I am glad they released these reviewers notes because it should be plain as the nose on your face how absurdly partisan and idiotic this review actually was.
 
Re: Scientists in cover-up of ‘damaging’ climate view[W:38]

Please point out the errors listed in the reviewer notes.

I see a lot of excuses being made for why all these models are so different which is of course completely ignoring the point that these models are so different. The reviewers seem to have inexplicably forgotten that the whole purpose of these models is to be able to model observational data. If they all do their own thing independent of observed climate then they are all worthless.

It really doesn't matter WHY they are all wrong, just that they are. Bengtsson's paper made the assumption that models presented as being able to reconstruct climate should be able to match observed climate. The reviewers "error" was to claim that that is not the case. It's an amazingly foolish argument to make.

The paper ultimately was rejected because it wasn't a "breakthrough" study... but the vast majority of published studies are not "breakthrough" studies. I'm guessing the reviewers wouldn't be very pleased if all their future papers were held to such qualifications.

Also from the rejection:

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.

Gatekeeping. Pure and simple. Bengtsson was entirely accurate in his assessment. These models are sold to the public as being reasonable replicators of global climate given known forcing inputs. These models are where the IPCC and others derive their forcing estimations. If they are "expected" to be different from observed climate then they are "expected" to be wrong. If they are "expected" to be wrong then we can "expect" that their derived CO2 sensitivity is wrong.

Also from the rejection:

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.


... so they expect the impact to be "high", but the paper is not a breakthrough? They also call the claims of big inconsistencies as "false" after spending most of the rejection explaining why there are big inconsistencies.

Seriously, folks, I am glad they released these reviewers notes because it should be plain as the nose on your face how absurdly partisan and idiotic this review actually was.

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


Translation: "I'll be darned! There really AREN'T any actual errors listed in those review notes."
 
Back
Top Bottom