Breaking: CLIMATEGATE II....Here we go again!!!

[mamooth]

Bengtsson is an old Swedish right wing crank, but his colleagues never cared about that before, given he previously didn't let politics into the science.

Bengtsson wrote a bad paper. It got rejected, for reasons the editors carefully explained to him. Basically, the paper didn't do anything new. It just pointed out some changes between AR4 and AR5, which everyone already knew. Originality is a requirement for a paper, and that one didn't have any.

Instead of taking the reasons for rejection to heart, Bengtsson went full metal paranoid and publicly claimed he was being persecuted, and the journal was conspiring against him. Meaning his name is now complete shit in all of the scientific community. You simply don't do sour grapes whining and publicly badmouth reviewers like that.

The Journal isn't taking it lying down. They've published the full referee report, so that everyone can see how Bengtsson and the Times lied.
---
Statement from IOP Publishing on story in The Times
---

And the Murdoch Times, with the headlines accusing of a cover up? That's dishonesty on a scale such that a libel suit would be appropriate, given that the bar to prove libel is so much lower in the UK.

 

[HelenaHandbag]

Seems that Bengtsson is the Robert Atkins of global warmer climate mad cow disruptiveness.

 

[skookerasbil]

Bengtsson is an old Swedish right wing crank, but his colleagues never cared about that before, given he previously didn't let politics into the science.

Bengtsson wrote a bad paper. It got rejected, for reasons the editors carefully explained to him. Basically, the paper didn't do anything new. It just pointed out some changes between AR4 and AR5, which everyone already knew. Originality is a requirement for a paper, and that one didn't have any.

Instead of taking the reasons for rejection to heart, Bengtsson went full metal paranoid and publicly claimed he was being persecuted, and the journal was conspiring against him. Meaning his name is now complete shit in all of the scientific community. You simply don't do sour grapes whining and publicly badmouth reviewers like that.

The Journal isn't taking it lying down. They've published the full referee report, so that everyone can see how Bengtsson and the Times lied.
---
Statement from IOP Publishing on story in The Times
---

And the Murdoch Times, with the headlines accusing of a cover up? That's dishonesty on a scale such that a libel suit would be appropriate, given that the bar to prove libel is so much lower in the UK.

 

[skookerasbil]

One will always note that every single uber progressive in this forum never has a response that is intellectual. Indeed......it is ALWAYS a personal attack against the messenger as if what they had to say was meaningless. It is the way of the uber-progressive in the 2000's.......as if their views were mainstream.

The fact is....a recent Rasmussen poll showed that 70% of the American public believes the scientists are fucking with the data. This report just kicks that number up higher. And what a dick Momooth is......says the "journal isn't taking this laying down"

THATS the whole point asshole.......the journal is bought. And now millions more know it!!!



Climate science is fraudulent science.

 

[skookerasbil]

At the end of the day, the only thing that matters is what this 2013 Obama EIA graph looks like.






Note the level of renewable's a couple of decades from now ( see green ). How laughable. When you fuck with the data, that's what kind of effect it has on future energy = virtually nothing!!!!! These morons have been beating the same stoopid bomb throwing drum for 2 1/2 decades now making fun of the skeptics.

And look how much they have moved the goalposts!!!



Imagine Keira Knightly strutting around proclaiming she's gonna win the next best boobs contest!!


Climate k00k lose.

 

[william the wie]

While I agree that this is a pause in reversion to the mean who elected the AGW crowd to screw up the works with their halfassed economic analyses of what makes the least polluting sources of energy?

 

[IanC]

Bengtsson is an old Swedish right wing crank, but his colleagues never cared about that before, given he previously didn't let politics into the science.

Bengtsson wrote a bad paper. It got rejected, for reasons the editors carefully explained to him. Basically, the paper didn't do anything new. It just pointed out some changes between AR4 and AR5, which everyone already knew. Originality is a requirement for a paper, and that one didn't have any.

Instead of taking the reasons for rejection to heart, Bengtsson went full metal paranoid and publicly claimed he was being persecuted, and the journal was conspiring against him. Meaning his name is now complete shit in all of the scientific community. You simply don't do sour grapes whining and publicly badmouth reviewers like that.

The Journal isn't taking it lying down. They've published the full referee report, so that everyone can see how Bengtsson and the Times lied.
---
Statement from IOP Publishing on story in The Times
---

And the Murdoch Times, with the headlines accusing of a cover up? That's dishonesty on a scale such that a libel suit would be appropriate, given that the bar to prove libel is so much lower in the UK.

Did you read the letter supporting rejection mamooth? I did. I must admit I found it odd that the 'error' LB made was because he expected some consistency between model output and reality! hahahahaha

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.

sounds more like the reviewer just didnt want bad news to be made public. also, when journal gatekeepers keep negative results out of publication then it is much easier to run around shouting 'consensus' and 'settled science'.

 

[ScienceRocks]

The models fucked up.....

 

[IanC]

The models fucked up.....

no! models are a useful tool that help us judge our understanding of physical processes. unfortunately in climate science, somewhere along the line, models started to be confused with reality. it is not the models fault, it is the unwarranted belief that they are correct that has caused so much trouble.

 

[ScienceRocks]

The models fucked up.....

no! models are a useful tool that help us judge our understanding of physical processes. unfortunately in climate science, somewhere along the line, models started to be confused with reality. it is not the models fault, it is the unwarranted belief that they are correct that has caused so much trouble.

You make a good point...I believe the science isn't complete and we missed a few variables.

 

[Old Rocks]

And that is what models do. Predict, then measure reality against the predictions. At present, reality in consequences concerning the cryosphere has outran predictions by far. For temperature, reality is lower, at present, than predictions. Except in the oceans, where it is higher.

Yep. Some variables have been misjudged or missed. So the models will be adjusted, more factors will be added, and we will get a prediction a bit closer to reality.

Any of you here ever work on a Fourier Series? Each iteration of the series brings the model closer to the reality. But is is only 100% accurate at infinity. And that is what we are seeing now. Our models are only in the first few iterations of the series. Not very close to reality just yet.

 

[skookerasbil]

The models fucked up.....

no! models are a useful tool that help us judge our understanding of physical processes. unfortunately in climate science, somewhere along the line, models started to be confused with reality. it is not the models fault, it is the unwarranted belief that they are correct that has caused so much trouble.

Indeed.....outstanding point. To those with reasoned judgment, the models are only a useful tool in gaining our understanding of the climate. As predictors, they are useless. Speak to any MA or PHd scientist NOT heavily involved in the climate change club and they will tell you exactly that.

 

[skookerasbil]

Here is an outstanding paper from the Center for Policy Analysis on >>>>


Limitations of Climate Models as Predictors of Climate Change


http://www.ncpa.org/pdfs/ba396.pdf

 

[skookerasbil]

Back to topic.........

The fuckers will blacklist any scientist who doesn't conform with established climate change narratives. You talk about a movement that is fascist.......I present to you, the world of Climate Change Science.

Here is an outstanding site for people to learn about the dynamic that is this Climate Change religion >>>

A climate scientist who joined the board of a skeptical think tank was forced to resign from that think tank after only three weeks due to intense outside pressure and harassment from the global warming community. | Behind The Black



This is modern day McCarthyism. It is not science.........obviously.

 

[mamooth]

How is a scientist "forced" to withdraw from a think tank? Did someone put a gun to his head? Skook, your conspiracy isn't making any sense. When your colleagues politely point out you're acting like a kook, that's helpful advice, not "forcing".

I think Skook is mostly upset because only two near-tabloids, the Murdoch Times and Der Spiegel, are willing to run with his conspiracy theory. The regular media has been burned by denier fictions too many times and learned its lesson, and now correctly regards deniers as untrustworthy sources. Which, of course, feeds the denier paranoia further.

 

[Kosh]

The AGW church programs these called climate models and when it is exposed that these models are worthless the AGW cult still denies it. Who are the true deniers?

 

[mamooth]

Kosh, did your voices tell you that?

You're crazy, you know. The crap you spout isn't even remotely related to reality. It's just idiot cult jabbering on your part. It's rather of sad and tragic, the way your nutty political cult deliberately takes advantage of people with mental problems like yours.

 

[Kosh]

Kosh, did your voices tell you that?

You're crazy, you know. The crap you spout isn't even remotely related to reality. It's just idiot cult jabbering on your part. It's rather of sad and tragic, the way your nutty political cult deliberately takes advantage of people with mental problems like yours.

Says the AGW cultist.

I have tried to engage you cultists with actual science, but the problem is your religious beliefs trump any science.

Yet you do show your true purpose on this board with posts like these.

If you really believed in science you would not back AGW in the slightest. Thus it is your religion and not based on any science fact and thus making thing you spout about your religion shows that you are more of religious zealot (cult follower) than any believer in science.

 

[mamooth]

That's right Kosh, the whole world is a cult, and you're one of a select few elite who know the RealTruth.

No, there's nothing paranoid or cultlike about that at all. Keep telling yourself that. All the normal people think just like you do. Except the ones in the cult, which is apparently almost everyone.

 

[Kosh]

That's right Kosh, the whole world is a cult, and you're one of a select few elite who know the RealTruth.

No, there's nothing paranoid or cultlike about that at all. Keep telling yourself that. All the normal people think just like you do. Except the ones in the cult, which is apparently almost everyone.

More AGW cult logic at work see how their programming flows well with their instruction set. They can not give up their religious beliefs and give in to real science. Then again the far left is has this same exact mentality. Makes wonder why all that are in the AGW cult are far left zealots as well.