Skip to comments.Global warming research suppressed due to intolerance of skepticism, claims scientist
Posted on 05/17/2014 9:49:47 PM PDT by Olog-hai
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 less than helpful.
Professor Lennart Bengtsson says recent McCarthy-style pressure from fellow academics forced him to resign from his post on a climate skeptic think-tank.
The research fellow from the University of Reading believes a paper he co-authored was deliberately suppressed from publication in a leading journal because of an intolerance of dissenting views about climate change by scientists who peer-reviewed the work.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
The irony is that although liberals will reject any religious influence in science, they’re just fine with political influence. It’s more like the science of the dark ages except that politics mandates a particular belief, similar to how the Earth-centered model of Aristotle was rigidly enforced.
Green crap is nothing but money laundering and crony payoffs.
Bengtsson’s peers are mad because he is messing with their livelihood. Should global warming grants dry up, they would have to get real jobs.
Another nail in the AGW coffin.
I remember when the scientific method required that a hypothesis be falsifiable - that contrary evidence could disprove a hypothesis. Today, Global Warming cannot be disproven because all possible evidence supports it.
Cold winter? Global Warming.
Warm winter? Global Warming.
Drought? Global Warming.
Floods? Global Warming.
Wildfires? Global Warming.
Election season? Global Warming.
This isn’t what science is supposed to mean, and the skeptics are the ones following the scientific method, being called names, and being told “the debate is over”. That last issue particularly irritates me; the debate is never over in real science.
You can’t have anything interfere with the gravy train.
When money talks, nobody walks.
Globull warming grants are Big Business and everyone’s got a hand out.
If the money’s right, few folks worry about personal integrity. They’re too busy thinking about that new Mercedes.
Wanting desparatly to tap into the tax base of every hardworking American to support the wolrd and its elitist dictators
Outstanding if true, especially since that is the tax-payers money buying that junk science.
OK!! Everybody pay attention!
Lesson for today:
1. The sun is 1,300,000 times as big as the earth.
2. The sun is a ball of fire that controls the climates of all its planets.
3. The earth is one of the suns planets.
4. The earth is a speck in comparison to the size of the sun.
5. Inhabitants of the earth are less than specks.
Study Question: How do less-than-specks in congress plan to control the sun?
The scientists on global warming and evolution and also the communists and Marxists all have the same agenda and that is to get our money at the point of a gun barrel.
I was sent a letter from the county a couple days ago telling me that if I wanted to vote in the primary I would have to affiliate my self with one party or another.
After studying the platforms of the constitution party I have decided to register as a constitutionalist as I pretty much agree with their platform which include not only global warming issues but they recognize God as out creator and the founder of this nation.
They are also more sensible on most other issues as is the libertarian party but unlike the libertarians they do not recognize homosexuality as a God given right.
I would encourage every one to do a little studying on the platforms of the different parties, because in case this earth is still livable tomorrow we do need a change.
We need a name for this behavior. McCarthyism is just wrong....
I know a few global warming true believers....
I have never gotten a cogent response when I point out ALL global warming “science” is based on computer models and not empirical observable evidence..
If we can forecast weather for at best ten days with a decent degree of accuracy, how can we forecast weather for the next 100 years to the single degree of temperature change ?
And we are going to completely change our way of life to do so....
Isn’t that insane.
Most just give me a dumb look...
This is henny-pennyism, technically climachondria. It is epidemic among leftists. The main symptom is an inflated sense of awesomness such that sufferers believe they are more powerful than nature and can, by their collective actions, alter natural forces. Their leader claimed his ascension “was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal. Their belief in their personal power is beyond a religious furor. It is a collective messianism. It is spread through government (public) schools. There is no cure, as among the infected are many researchers who might otherwise seek a treatment. They are being paid to fuel the disease.
I don’t disagree with your conclusion, but would like to point out that the particular argument you cite here isn’t all that good.
There are a great many areas of science in which small-scale predictions cannot be made with assurance, but long-term large scale predictions can.
A classic example is gambling. Whether a given pull of the handle on the one-armed bandit will produce a jackpot cannot be accurately predicted. But the more pulls are made and the larger the number of bandits, the closer the results will get to those predicted by the set odds.
Economics is another example. It is essentially impossible to make accurate predictions about an individual person’s financial prospects. It is much more possible to predict the movement of an entire economy.
IOW, in science large-scale predictions are very often more accurate than small-scale ones.
Whether this principle applies specifically to weather and climate change predictions is something I’m not addressing.
Not sure about that...
Gambling in it's many forms is strictly a numbers game...so many combinations and so many chances to win...at some point you will win...you will be broke, but you won!!!
Climate change is much more complex and so many unknowns you can't figure into your prediction.
I think it's apples and oranges...JMHO
I’m not claiming the principle of being able to predict large-scale outcomes while being unable to predict small-scale ones applies to weather/climate.
Only that the principle exists, and so claiming that climate predictions are inherently invalid because our ability to predict the weather is strictly limited is not a good argument.
I think the argument you make here is a much better one.
To accurately predict climate one would need to know what all the factors are, exactly how they interact with each other, and what the feedback mechanisms are. And we just DON’T have that knowledge.
Given the complexity of the question, we probably never will.
Since all these many factors are not really determinable, many of them are SWAGs (Scientific Wild Ass Guesses). Then they estimate (guess) how these guessed-at factors interact.
Then the guesses about guesses are fed through a computer program, which gives it a surface appearance of quantification and rigorous analysis.
But it doesn’t matter how precisely you analyze a series of guesses, they remain guesses.
Or, GIGO. A great deal of the data that goes into these computer projections is essentially Garbage.
Yet people treat the computer projections as Fact, because they come out of a computer.
I’ve seen this very odd psychological mechanism at work myself in my line of business.
I am sometimes asked to analyze estimates/invoices provided for certain services for their reasonableness.
Most of these estimates are produced by computer estimating software. Most people presented with a computer estimate/invoice act like it’s somehow beyond question.
Yet a good (or dishonest) estimator can make that estimating system produce whatever bottom line he wants it to. A computer program is only a tool. It does not itself produce results or accuracy. That is utterly and entirely dependent on what is fed into it.
Yet global warming believers think a computer projection is a legitimate reason to transform of our standard of living dramatically...
A 'little' perspective.
One aspect of humanism, that we’re the center of the universe, so therefore also the cause of everything that can go wrong. It’s actually anti-humanism in the spiritual sense because they believe we’re only animals, just here for instinctive self-gratification.
I think there is excellent evidence mankind is causing an increase in CO2 and other greenhouse evidence. Indeed the evidence for this is indisputable.
But there are (at least) two additional levels of extrapolation from this fact that warmists often gloss over.
1. Since greenhouse gases are increasing, the atmosphere will heat up. The problem with this assumption is that there are many, many feedback systems in the ecosystem, many of which we don’t understand. We probably aren’t even aware of all of them.
Yet warmists make the unjustified assumption that all such feedback will be positive, increasing warming, or at least that the net effect of all the feedbacks will be positive.
It is as reasonable to assume that feedbacks will be neutral or even negative in effect.
2. Massive changes to our way of life is the best, indeed only, way to effectively address the warming caused by an increase in greenhouse gases. And that putting governments in charge of these changes is the only hope for mankind and the ecosystem.
Even if we were to assume that warming is happening exactly as claimed, the universal agreement among warmists that the only solution is to make government immensely more powerful is at the very least unproven.
Yet if you disagree with, or even express a lack of conviction regarding, any one of these points you will be denounced as a “denier.”
>> A climate change researcher has claimed that scientists are confusing their role as impartial observers...
I had no idea where this story was going when I read the opening fragment; however, I appreciated its meaning which speaks to the political exploitation of science and trust — the realm of Climate Politics.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.