These global warming hoaxsters/profiteers are really something. They will stop at nothing to protect their income stream. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...arch-because-of-climate-sceptic-argument.html A climate change researcher has claimed that scientists are confusing their role as impartial observers with green activism after his paper challenging predictions about the speed of global warming was rejected because it was seen as âless than helpful.â Professor Lennart Bengtsson says recent McCarthy-style pressure from fellow academics forced him to resign from his post on a climate sceptic think-tank. The research fellow from the University of Reading believes a paper he co-authored was deliberately suppressed from publicatoin in a leading journal because of an intolerance of dissenting views about climate change by scientists who peer-reviewed the work. âThe problem we have now in the scientific community is that some scientists are mixing up their scientific role with that of climate activist,â he told the Times. Professor Bengtsson claims a scientist advised that the paper, which challenged findings that global temperature would increase by 4.5C if greenhouse gases were to double, should not be published in a respected journal because it was âless than helpful.â
the interesting thing is that sometimes the leftist major papers are starting to report the truth. They must be sensing the truth can't be hidden much longer.
Murdoch-owned media hypes lone metereologist's climate junk science Absurd anti-science faux journalism flares up again - as usual, it's Big Oil that's set to benefit, not the public Thankfully, IOP Publishing has decided to make the full reviewer reports publicly available so that we can all see why Bengtsson's paper was really rejected: "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... 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." Far from denying the validity of Bengtsson's questions, the reviewers set out ways he could improve the work: "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." The "unbearable" scientific isolation that Prof Bengtsson experienced as a consequence of joining the GWPF, and submitting scientifically questionable material to a leading journal, should not come as a surprise. That the climate science community roundly rejects the GWPF's denialist rantings, and found Bengtsson's work in this regard unfit to publish, is evidence for the overwhelming consensus on climate change - not against it. As an illustrative example of just how isolated Prof Bengtsson and his ilk are, consider the fact reported earlier this year by Scientific American that out of more than 2,000 peer-reviewed climate science publications put out over the last year from November 2012 to December 2013, the number of scientists who denied the role of human-caused CO2 emissions in current climate change "is exactly one." That's right. One. Compare that to the number of scientific authors of those 2,000 plus papers - 9,136. So over nine thousand scientists over the last year agree that our fossil fuel emissions are principally responsible for contemporary climate change, and just one disagrees. The poor sod must be feeling pretty damn lonely, I imagine. Perhaps almost as lonely as Prof Bengtsson. http://www.theguardian.com/environm...rdoch-media-hypes-lone-climate-denial-big-oil
Such media misrepresentation is now par for the course. According to Forbes' denialist in residence, James Taylor, "only half of American Meteorology Society meteorologists believe global warming is occurring and humans are the primary cause" based on a new survey. The actual authors of that survey, published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorology Society, disagreed. In a statement responding to Taylor: "Among all the respondents, about 7 out of 10 (73%) said human activities have contributed to global warming." The survey further attempted to explore differences between meteorologists specialising in climate science, and those who didn't. It's worth quoting the clarification here in detail: "We found that more than 9 out of 10 climate science experts (93%) who publish mostly on climate change, and the same proportion (93%) of climate experts who publish mostly on other topics, were convinced that humans have contributed to global warming. We also found that about 8 out of 10 meteorologists and atmospheric scientists who publish on climate (79%) or other topics (78%) were convinced that humans have contributed to global warming. Lastly, we found that the group least likely to be convinced that humans have contributed to global warming was AMS members who do not publish research in the peer-reviewed scientific literature; only six out of 10 AMS members in this group (62%) were convinced." Compare that to Taylor's flagrant misinformation. Why would outfits like the GWPF and Murdoch-owned press engage in such absurd faux journalism? Who knows? The GWPF barely needs much comment. One previous Guardian investigation uncovered that one of GWPF's funders is Tory Party donor Michael Hintze, head of $5bn hedge-fund CQS which operates in the oil finance industry, among other areas. Another investigation exposed the "links between Lord Lawson and the GWPF and fossil fuel companies", including "a large Australian coal company." As for Rupert Murdoch, it's no secret that he has significant interests in the fossil fuel industry. Murdoch is a major equity share-holder in Genie Energy, where he is also a strategic advisory board member. Genie is a major investor in US and Israeli shale oil and gas projects. Murdoch is "extremely well regarded by and connected to leaders" in the "oil and gas industry" and "the financial markets," rejoiced Genie CEO at the time. According to the US journalism watchdog Media Matters, Murdoch's FOX News has frequently run news stories promoting Genie Energy's shale projects. What we're seeing here, then, isn't really journalism at all. Whatever its intent, in effect, it amounts to little more than glorified industry PR calling itself 'news.' The real story is how the IPCC's projections and solutions are likely to be far too conservative, having been 'diluted' by pressure from the world's biggest fossil fuel polluters. http://www.theguardian.com/environm...rdoch-media-hypes-lone-climate-denial-big-oil
first of all that reply was a bunch of no info. 2ndly the b.s. about 2000 papers is ridiculous. Those papers don't support the idea that man made co2 causes warming either. in fact out of over 11000 papers only 41 support the idea... and those papers were almost all old and based on failed models. There is zero empirical evidence that man made co2 is causing warming on earth.
A few excerpts from the article at the link below: ...One of the most telling features of climate science is just how few climate scientists changed their minds as the evidence changed... ...Evidently the right to practice and discuss climate science should be subject to a faith test... ...Fears about unbelieversâ polluting the discourse, as some academics put it, illustrate the weakness of climate science: The evidence for harmful anthropogenic global warming is not strong enough to stand up for itself... ...Inadvertently Schmidtâs tweet demonstrates how far climate science has crossed the boundary deep into pseudo-science... http://www.nationalreview.com/article/378011/science-mccarthyism-rupert-darwall
As an illustrative example of just how isolated Prof Bengtsson and his ilk are, consider the fact reported earlier this year by Scientific American that out of more than 2,000 peer-reviewed climate science publications put out over the last year from November 2012 to December 2013, the number of scientists who denied the role of human-caused CO2 emissions in current climate change "is exactly one." That's right. One. Compare that to the number of scientific authors of those 2,000 plus papers - 9,136. So over nine thousand scientists over the last year agree that our fossil fuel emissions are principally responsible for contemporary climate change, and just one disagrees. The poor sod must be feeling pretty damn lonely, I imagine. Perhaps almost as lonely as Prof Bengtsson. http://www.theguardian.com/environme...denial-big-oil
and zero of them provided empirical evidence that man made co2 causes warming. The vast majority of them addressed an entirely different issue. I provided a link to the database a few months ago you had no response when I gave you proof.
Climate change: A cure worse than the disease By Nicolas Loris Man-made greenhouse gas emissions already are causing gloom and doom and adversely affecting our way of life. That's the conclusion of the National Climate Assessment just released by the Obama administration. But before we trade our Buicks for bikes, it's important to highlight the climate realities and show that the administration's proposed policy solutions will drive up the cost of energy for Americans and have no meaningful impact on climate. Although the planet has warmed over the past six decades, and a broad consensus exists that part of that warming is attributed to man-made emissions, what we're seeing and where we're headed is not toward climate catastrophe. The climate threats do not match up with reality. Sea levels are rising, but not as fast as projected. There have been no significant trends for floods, droughts, hurricanes or tornadoes. Although the report does not address hurricanes, it does admit that "other trends in severe storms, including tornadoes, hail, and thunderstorms, are still uncertain." The report has a variety of serious problem. Many of the models the federal government relied on to promulgate these regulations projected a 0.3-degree Celsius warming over the past 17 years, when in reality no warming occurred (although CO2 emissions have increased). Since 2011, 16 experiments published in peer-reviewed literature found the equilibrium climate sensitivity (the effect that a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would have), is 40 percent lower than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the NCA project. In other words, a lot of variability exists in projecting what impact increased GHGs will have on the planet, which has serious implications not just for future temperature projections but all the other scary scenarios NCA outlines. What's most troubling is, even if climate change were occurring at an unsustainable rate, the administration's policy prescriptions will not fix anything but will further harm the economy... http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2014/5/climate-change-a-cure-worse-than-the-disease