• 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!

Suppression of Skeptical Research by "Consensus" Climate Science

I don't think you understand what any of that means or how any of that works.

You're buying a CT victim narrative. You might as well be defending the lamenting of people ignoring "eye witness testimony" that a missile hit the Pentagon.

I know what the peer-review process is, and, while individual journals have their own requirements, it's a little bit disappointing when a journal publishes to the outcry of naysayers and is compelled to change their rules.

It shouldn't matter if a scientific paper offers a perspective different from the commonly accepted one. In another 200 years, our climate science will be much further advanced, but only if new (and skeptical) ideas are both presented, studied, and verified or refuted.

The scientific process does NOT start with the conclusion and then pick out the elements that support that conclusion.

The scientific process starts by gathering ALL the elements and then basing the solution on those elements, EVEN if that solution veers from the norm.

To do anything else is anti-science.
 
I know what the peer-review process is, and, while individual journals have their own requirements, it's a little bit disappointing when a journal publishes to the outcry of naysayers and is compelled to change their rules.

It shouldn't matter if a scientific paper offers a perspective different from the commonly accepted one. In another 200 years, our climate science will be much further advanced, but only if new (and skeptical) ideas are both presented, studied, and verified or refuted.

The scientific process does NOT start with the conclusion and then pick out the elements that support that conclusion.

The scientific process starts by gathering ALL the elements and then basing the solution on those elements, EVEN if that solution veers from the norm.

To do anything else is anti-science.

:applaud
 
Another clue how corrupt science has become:

Researchers replicate just 13 of 21 social science experiments published in top journals
The “reproducibility crisis” in science is erupting again. A research project attempted to replicate 21 social science experiments published between 2010 and 2015 in the prestigious journals Science and Nature. Only 13 replication attempts succeeded. The other eight were duds, with no observed effects consistent with the original findings.

The failures do not necessarily mean the original results were erroneous, as the authors of this latest replication effort note. There could have been gremlins of some type in the second try. But the authors also noted that even in the replications that succeeded, the observed effect was on average only about 75 percent as large as the first time around.

The researchers conclude that there is a systematic bias in published findings, “partly due to false positives and partly due to the overestimated effect sizes of true positives.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ished-in-top-journals/?utm_term=.753da5de792b


WE USED TO BE BETTER
 
They should act like a scientific journal.

They aren't, they know it, they don't care, they figure in today's world
they can get away with it, and in the short term they probably will.
 
I know what the peer-review process is, and, while individual journals have their own requirements, it's a little bit disappointing when a journal publishes to the outcry of naysayers and is compelled to change their rules.

It shouldn't matter if a scientific paper offers a perspective different from the commonly accepted one. In another 200 years, our climate science will be much further advanced, but only if new (and skeptical) ideas are both presented, studied, and verified or refuted.

The scientific process does NOT start with the conclusion and then pick out the elements that support that conclusion.

The scientific process starts by gathering ALL the elements and then basing the solution on those elements, EVEN if that solution veers from the norm.

To do anything else is anti-science.


A fraud pulled a fast one on the journal. The only reviewers are the journal's reviewers and they got caught sleeping. They admit he slipped a fast one past them.

He can publish wherever else he wants. The journal owes him nothing. Allowing oneself to be ****ed over by a fraud is not "science".

To support the fraud's continued abuse of the journal is nothing short of rapey.

This has nothing to do with science and everything to do with conspiracy theorists loving it when legitimate sources get screwed by frauds.


It's private property. He's abused the owner. He's been asked to leave.
 
Peer-reviewed science merits more than your hand-waving dismissal. And the author deserves to have his rebuttal see the light of day.

The papers conclusion is flat out wrong. However, it shows how easy it is to peer review a bad paper into the process. Many other climate papers are just as bad.
 
The papers conclusion is flat out wrong. However, it shows how easy it is to peer review a bad paper into the process. Many other climate papers are just as bad.

Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't. There's a process to sort that out. The process has been corruptly shut down.
 

[h=1]Climate activists have long history of ducking debates with skeptics[/h]In response to this ridiculous letter in the Guardian saying “we won’t share a debate platform with skeptics” Marc Morano writes: Climate activists and scientists supporting the alleged “consensus” on man-made global warming have a long history of suppressing debate and intimidation scientists into silence. As a new round of calls go out to shut…
Continue reading →
 

[h=1]Climate activists have long history of ducking debates with skeptics[/h]In response to this ridiculous letter in the Guardian saying “we won’t share a debate platform with skeptics” Marc Morano writes: Climate activists and scientists supporting the alleged “consensus” on man-made global warming have a long history of suppressing debate and intimidation scientists into silence. As a new round of calls go out to shut…
Continue reading →

Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

Very interesting post! :thumbs: They won't debate, because they are learning that there are skeptics that are not willing to just accept what the "warmers pronounce as gospel?" Hmm.... If it's a secret, shouldn't they be willing to debate as often as possible to convince those who don't agree? Strange way to act, IMO! :screwy: .. :shrug:
 
Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

Very interesting post! :thumbs: They won't debate, because they are learning that there are skeptics that are not willing to just accept what the "warmers pronounce as gospel?" Hmm.... If it's a secret, shouldn't they be willing to debate as often as possible to convince those who don't agree? Strange way to act, IMO! :screwy: .. :shrug:

Greetings Polgara,:2wave:

They do not prattle on about "settled science" and "consensus" because they are confident. They fear debate.
 
Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

Very interesting post! :thumbs: They won't debate, because they are learning that there are skeptics that are not willing to just accept what the "warmers pronounce as gospel?" Hmm.... If it's a secret, shouldn't they be willing to debate as often as possible to convince those who don't agree? Strange way to act, IMO! :screwy: .. :shrug:

Did you know the author, Morano, is basically an oil lobbyist?

Do you think scientists should give of their time to provide ‘skeptics’ with a debate platform to promote anti-evolution views, or eugenics?
 
... Do you think scientists should give of their time to provide ‘skeptics’ with a debate platform to promote anti-evolution views, or eugenics?

The people who espouse beliefs in evolution and genetics,
aren't on the road to tell us how to live our lives. But the
people who worship at the altar of Climate Change orthodoxy
do want to tell us what to do. They are on the road to require
permits to travel, eat red meat, have children, and live past
the age of 65.

There is no limit to what sorts of things people, who believe
that the human presence on the earth constitutes some sort
of ecological catastrophe, will do if they are given the power.
 
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]New book shreds the “climate to extreme weather” link[/h][FONT=&quot]After nearly every hurricane, heatwave, drought, or other extreme weather event, commentators rush to link the disaster with climate change. But what does the science say? In this fully revised and updated edition of Disasters & Climate Change, renowned political scientist Roger Pielke Jr. takes a close look at the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on…
Continue reading →
[/FONT]
 
The Consensus Enforcement Squad, German style.

Radicals Bully NH Munich Conference Center…Force Cancellation Of 13th Skeptic Climate Conference!

By P Gosselin on 19. November 2019

Just like the 1030s, and again Munich. There’s no question that freedom of science and speech are under heavy attack in Germany after dozens of distinguished but dissenting scientists see their long planned science conference cancelled due to intimidation by leftwing extremists.

Germany caving in to leftist extremists. A skeptic climate conference gets cancelled at last minute due to coercion. Image: Antifa action in Phoenix, 2017, cropped from Carptrash – I, Einar Kvaran, License: CC BY-SA 4.0
This latest climate conference cancellation comes just after leftists coerced the University of Hamburg to disinvite political leaders from making speeches.
The same has also occurred at the famed University of Göttingen.
The problem of suppressing open discussion has deteriorated to such an extent over the recent years across Germany that even according to leftist Spiegel: 75% of journalists and writers are “very concerned” or “somewhat concerned” about the state of free speech in Germany!
Free speech in Germany is in crisis.
Munich NH Congress Center bullied, cancels at last minute
The latest violent suppression of free speech suppression has unfolded in Munich: The 13th International Climate and Energy Conference, sponsored by the European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE) and CFACT, has been booted out of the conference facility at the last minute.
Pressured by “left-green mob”
According to EIKE spokesman, Prof. Horst-Joachim Lüdecke, “a left-green mob” pressured the hotel management of the NH Congress Center in Munich(Aschheim) “to illegally cancel the accommodation contract”. EIKE went to court and demanded revocation of the termination in an emergency motion. However, today a Bavarian court just ruled in favor of the conference center, citing “security reasons”.
EIKE is a non-profit organization like the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK). The Jena-Germany based EIKE plans every year a scientific conference on current climate and energy topics. This year it was planned to take place on November 22nd in Munich.
More than 200 scientists and attendees had booked, many paid
More than 200 international scientists and experts had long since booked and paid for their travels, as well as their hotels. Many of them in the conference hotel NH Congress Center. Some of them were planned to come from overseas, the USA, Canada and Australia. Media representatives also asked to be accredited, this year much more than usual.
Distinguished scientists were to appear
But the problem is that the 13th International Climate and Energy Conference is one that allows alternative – NON-ALARMIST – views on climate science to be presented by distinguished scientists such as astrophysicists Nir Shaviv of Israel and Prof. Henrik Svensmark of Denmark. More than a dozen were slated to speak. . . .

 
The Consensus Enforcement Squad at work:

[FONT=&quot]Climate Communications[/FONT]
[h=1]The BBC, Bob Ward & The Climate Catastrophists’ Attack On Dissent[/h][FONT=&quot]From The GWPF Date: 31/12/19 Matt Ridley, Reaction What readers of newspapers and listeners to the radio do not see is the sustained and deliberate pressure put on editors to toe the alarmist line on climate change. I was asked to appear on the Today programme on Saturday 28 December by the guest editor, Charles…
[/FONT]
 
[h=2]German Solar Industry, Politicians, Call For Punishment Of Dissenters: “Sabotaging Climate Emergency Measures”[/h]By P Gosselin on 5. January 2020
Climate science and energy policy dissenters may need to be prepared to get fined, maybe sent to a mental institution or even imprisoned. German climate crazies are calling for it!
prisoner-296515_640.png

[h=3]Solar industry lobby wants to punish climate emergency critics for sabotaging emergency measures[/h]By Kalte Sonne
(Translated/edited by P. Gosselin)
German public broadcaster Deutschlandfunk on December 25, 2019:
Climate scientist Johan Rockström thinks the declaration of a climate emergency is justified.
Rockström (Potsdam Institute Director):
The declaration of a “climate emergency” would make it possible to make really big decisions. …such as making things possible that are necessary but have not been considered realistic.“
This reminds in the diction of 24 March 1933, at that time the law was officially called: “Law to remedy the distress of the people and the Reich” and it served to abolish the Republic. Isn’t anyone suspicious?
What fits well here is an action of the solar industry lobby, which has made good business from the alleged climate catastrophe. Whoever criticizes the climate alarmism professionally is considered a troublemaker. So it fits in well with the picture that the Solarenergie Förderverein Deutschland e.V. (Solar Energy Association of Germany) is calling for the punishment of critics on its website. The address of the site is: http://sfv.de/artikel/verharmlosung_der_klimakrise_eine_straftat.htm. Here we read:
Wolf von Fabeck calls for punishment for those who trivialize the climate catastrophe:
Trivializing the climate catastrophe endangers the survival of mankind – do we have to accept this?

Why the trivializers cannot hide behind the fundamental right of freedom of expression
They even link to a PIK-alarm paper:
At the suggestion of the Fridays For Future demonstrators, Constance is now the first German city to declare a ‘climate emergency’ – a rather symbolic act – but one that shows what is needed. Mayor Burchardt explained that from now on all decisions to be taken by the city council must be assessed in terms of climate protection. At the same time, he called on the Federal Government to improve the legal framework for climate protection measures.
It is essential to ward off the danger decisively and to the best of our knowledge and belief, not only in Constance, but everywhere in Germany (everyone should first of all put their own house in order), and finally worldwide. In the case of climate catastrophe, the best knowledge is provided by the natural sciences, and not by those who trivialize it. What the trivializers do can be described as sabotage, and sabotage of emergency measures should be punished.”
[…]
A strong democracy must not accept this development. What is missing here is the legal threat of punishment within the Criminal Code – as already mentioned in the summary:
‘Anyone who plays down or denies the climate catastrophe in a way that is likely to disrupt, disparage or completely prevent the defense of the climate catastrophe under the Paris Climate Convention and its follow-up agreements will be punished with a fine of up to 300 days wages. In case of recurrence, the penalty is imprisonment.’
Such a threat of punishment in no way undermines the fundamental right to freedom of opinion. Also the freedom of opinion has, as already mentioned in the introduction, legal limits (Article 5, Paragraph 2, first half sentence German Law). For example, according to Paragraphs 185 to 187 of the German Criminal Code, insult, libel and slander are also sanctioned, because otherwise peaceful coexistence is not possible.”
Emergency laws, sabotage, punishment. This seemingly undemocratic argumentation is not entirely new in Germany. The last time it was heard was 80 years ago. . . .


 
Let me guess. "By emissions, I mean just the scooters. Not cars, or boats, or agriculture or industry. Just the scooters."

His claim is stupid on its face and an embarrassment to anyone associated with it.

Global warming is a theory supported by biased interpretations of data coupled with results from biased computer models crafted around biased global warming assumptions.
 
Jack Hayes has 6 posts in a row and not one word of original content among all 6. None of the posts are quoting anyone.


Like that's not spam.
 
Jack Hayes has 6 posts in a row and not one word of original content among all 6. None of the posts are quoting anyone.


Like that's not spam.

No, it's not. It's a reflection of your (and your allies') preference to hide and avoid discussion.
 
No, it's not. It's a reflection of your (and your allies') preference to hide and avoid discussion.

It is spam.

6 posts in a row.

Not a word of original content among all 6.

Nobody quoted in any of them.

You're just file dumping all over the subforum.
 
Back
Top Bottom