Proof "Climate Science" a rigged game!!

[ScienceRocks]

And yet our government treats global warming like it is the top danger facing this country. That is all that matters.

 

[flacaltenn]

And yet our government treats global warming like it is the top danger facing this country. That is all that matters.

climate change is perhaps the world's most fearsome weapon of mass destruction.

Guess who???

 

[polarbear]

If it was rigged, do you honestly believe we'd be going on 15 years of no warming? You'd think they'd of shown some warming.

It is rigged else "they" would have admitted it a lot sooner...whoever it is you mean by "they". Some of the "they" like the skeptical"science" dot orgy clusterfuck still refuse to admit it....and all you hear is crap like this "April" was the xth warmest month or how hot it`s been in some dorf in Australia.

The IPCC maintained till very recently that the hiatus isn`t "statistically significant" and therefore never mentioned it in their latest annual report.

When individuals who wrote it were questioned about the hiatus they refused at first to acknowledge it and huddled in meetings behind closed doors how they should respond...and came out later blabbering about aerosols.
Just as ridiculous were the "explanations" why North America set low temperature records last winter.
New buzz words were invented like "polar vortex" and a previously unknown process was quickly invented which was of course caused by CO2 which somehow can bend the jet stream and cause the arctic air to "spill like an overfilled bucket":
CBS Blames Global Warming for Harsh Winter Weather | NewsBusters

 

[Crick]

Your magic words: hiatus
My magic words: BTK

 

[Crick]

Everyone of those nasty letters he recieved ought to be released to the press. Threats and all.
Because NONE of those folks understand the basic tenets of scientific investigation and research.

At 79, if he wanted to move the discussion to rational debate -- he shouldn't have folded to the pressure.
His tormentors and inquistioners are peeing their pants over ONE SCIENTIST attempting to moderate the discussion..

Ever read the death threats that Michael Mann has received? Ever feel in any small amount responsible?

 

[polarbear]

Everyone of those nasty letters he recieved ought to be released to the press. Threats and all.
Because NONE of those folks understand the basic tenets of scientific investigation and research.

At 79, if he wanted to move the discussion to rational debate -- he shouldn't have folded to the pressure.
His tormentors and inquistioners are peeing their pants over ONE SCIENTIST attempting to moderate the discussion..

Ever read the death threats that Michael Mann has received? Ever feel in any small amount responsible?

No, did you?
Are you implying that you read them or are you just trying to posture that you know something we don`t.
It`s not as if nobody but you would not know how Baron Munchhausen aka Michael Mann was whining about it in every news interview he gave after he got busted. First he re-defined what a "trick" is and then started playing the victim in dire need of sympathy.
By the way don`t you think that the FBI would continue investigating if a prominent person like Mann receives an envelope with a white powder in it even though it turned out to be a hoax?

I would not put it past Michael Mann to have staged that hoax himself and just maybe the FBI agents that had to respond and come to the trick expert`s residence thought so too.

Why don`t you send him a letter with some corn starch in it and sign it.
I bet you the FBI will arrest you and have you prosecuted.

They cant possibly drop the case even though it was just a hoax.
It`s a federal offense since 2004

The Anti-Hoax Terrorism Act 2001 was passed by the US House of Representatives
and legislation making terrorism hoaxes a federal offense was finally passed as part of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004.
One of the most prolific hoaxers was Clayton Waagner, an anti-abortion activist who mailed hundreds of anthrax hoax letters to abortion clinics in late 2001[19] and who was convicted in December 2003

But the FBI did stop the investigation of the "attacks" on Michael Mann.
Why ?
Let me guess. The FBI is in a conspiracy with the oil lobby & global warming "deniers" right ?

 

[Old Rocks]

Read what happens to you if you are a scientist that doesnt comform to the established AGW narrative: alarmism.

Climate change scientist claims he has been forced from new job in 'McCarthy'-style witch-hunt by academics across the world | Mail Online


McCarthy style witch hunts!!! Awesome!!! Guy fears for his own personal safety!!! Hmmm.......but these people certainly arent fascists!!


Climate science = epic levels of corruption!!! You embrace their science.......or your career AND your family are compromised!!!


Go back and read some passages from Einstein about new scientific findings and thier purpose in gaining scientific knowledge!!! Were he alicve today, he'd be laughing his nut sack off at this "climate change" charade!!

Oh yeah, all these scientists around the world are in on a conspiracy. Whether they are Christian, Moslem, Buddist, or whatever, they have joined this conspracy. Whether they live in the EU, US, Canada, Russia, or China, they are in on the conspiracy.

Have you fools stocked up on enough aluminum foil for your little tin hats

 

[flacaltenn]

Your magic words: hiatus
My magic words: BTK

You don't UNDERSTAND the claims made about the BTK study.. If you did, you would answer the questions I asked you... Like why if the ocean storage has had the same rate since the 70s -- why did the effect of temperature just kick in around 2000? Or why did the storage rate FALL about the time you claim the ocean started to eat the warming?

 

[Vigilante]

Dr. Roy weighs in on this news..

Roy Spencer, PhD


What makes the Bengtsson case somewhat unusual is his high profile. A Director at ECMWF. Then Max Planck Institute. He was at ECMWF when that organization became the top weather forecasting center in the world. He knows the importance of models providing good forecasts, with demonstrable skill — exactly what the climate models do not yet provide. That climate models do NOT provide good forecasts with demonstrable skill should concern everyone. But as Bengtsson has found out, a scientist advertises this fact at their peril.

Bengtsson has always been a little skeptical, as all good scientists should be. After all, most published science ends up being wrong anyway.
This bad behavior by the climate science community is nothing new. It’s been going on for at least 20 years.

I have talked to established climate scientists who are afraid to say anything about their skepticism. In hushed tones, they admit they have to skew the wording of papers and proposals to not appear to be one of those “denier” types.

I’ve told the story of meeting with V.P. Gore’s environmental science adviser in the early 1990s who confided that, now that they had successfully regulated the manufacture of CFCs, carbon dioxide was next. The IPCC was being formed to make that happen, by enlisting scientists who would be guided by politicians and government representatives.

As I have always said, if you fund scientists to find evidence of something, they will be happy to find it for you. For over 20 years we have been funding them to find evidence of the human influence on climate. And they dutifully found it everywhere, hiding under every rock, glacier, ocean, and in every cloud, hurricane, tornado, raindrop, and snowflake.

So, just tell scientists 20% of their funds will be targeted for studying natural sources of climate change. They will find those, too.

I think we might be seeing the death throes of alarmist climate science. They know they are on the ropes, and are pulling out all the stops in a last ditch effort to shore up their crumbling storyline. Since the public doesn’t really care anymore, they have to shout even louder. Exaggerate even more.

The latest example is the highly speculative theory that, after only 40 years of watching an Antarctic glacier, we have a few scientists extrapolating out to 200 to 1,000 years a “collapse” of a portion of the ice sheet. The media presents it as something that sounds imminent and unavoidable. Governor Brown then says it will inundate LAX airport, even though at 125 ft elevation, the greater threat to LAX is probably sliding into the ocean from a mega-earthquake, or an invasion by extraterrestrials.

Don't look now -- but the entire tone at Max Planck Inst. has changed in the past year. NOT JUST Bengtsson.. Lemmings line up.. It's time to jump.

 

[Crick]

Bengtsson's work was rejected for completely valid reasons and those reasons - the responses from every one of the journal's reviewers - were published. His work was nothing more than a restatement of knowns and contained errors. He was provided a great deal of advice from his reviewers as to how he could improve his work. It was reported that he initially accused his reviewers of persecuting him for activist reasons.

The truth is that deniers are so desperate for instances which they can twist to support their martydom and victim play, they have thrown honesty COMPLETELY out the window.

BTW, Lennart Bengtsson himself rejects your claims.

From Wikipedia's article oh the man

Lennart Bengtsson (born 5 July 1935, Trollhättan (age, 79)), is a Swedish meteorologist. His research interests include climate sensitivity, extreme events, climate variability and climate predictability. [1]

He was Head of Research at the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts from 1975 to 1981 and then Director until 1990; then director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg. He is now a Senior Research Fellow at the Environmental Systems Science Centre in the University of Reading.

In 2005 he was awarded the René Descartes Prize for Collaborative Research[2] together with Prof. Ola M. Johannessen and Dr. Leonid Bobylev from the Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Centre in Norway and Russia for the Climate and Environmental Change in the Arctic project. In 2006 he was awarded the 51st IMO prize of the World Meteorological Organization for pioneering research in numerical weather prediction.[3]

A draft paper discussing issues of climate sensitivity and uncertainties in the IPCC Fourth and Fifth Assessment Reports in relation to a recent paper by Otto et al. was submitted by Bengtsson and colleagues to Environmental Research Letters in February 2014, and was rejected in mid March after peer review by two referees who found that it did not meet the requirement to "significantly advance knowledge of the field". Following this, Bengtsson and his co-authors then requested the journal to publish it as a shorter "Perspective" article, but in early April the journal's editorial board turned this request down, adding that the paper contained errors and exceeded the normal size limit for "Perspective" pieces. They suggested that the errors should be corrected and a full length paper resubmitted with a new analysis of the data.[4]

As its lead story on 16 May 2014, The Times said that the paper Bengtsson had submitted to Environmental Research Letters in February had been rejected for what Bengtsson called "activist" reasons.[5] The publishers, the Institute of Physics, stated that the paper "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." They said that "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", and put online the referee reports from mid March when the paper had been rejected. Later that day, Bengtsson issued a statement that "I do not believe there is any systematic 'cover-up' of scientific evidence on climate change or that academics' work is being 'deliberately suppressed', as the Times front page suggests. I am worried by a wider trend that science is gradually being influenced by political views".[6]

On 30 April 2014, Bengtsson joined the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a climate change skeptics organization. On 14 May Bengtsson reversed this decision.[7][6] In a press release published by the GWPF, he cited "an enormous group pressure" and said that "I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years." and " I had not expecting such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life". [8] Two days later The Times reported that "Scientists from around the world sent messages of support to Professor Bengtsson". [9]

References
1) Lennart Bengtsson at Meteorology Dept., University of Reading
2) Lennart Bengtsson received Descartes Research Prize 2005
3) Award of 51st IMO Prize by WMO
4) Commissariat, Tushna (16 May 2014). "Dispute arises over rejected climate-science paper - physicsworld.com". Institute of Physics. Retrieved 19 May 2014.
5) Scientists in cover-up of ‘damaging’ climate view, The Times, 16 May 2014
6) Harvey, Fiona (16 May 2014). "Rejected climate science paper contained errors, says publisher : Environment". The Guardian. Retrieved 16 May 2014.
7) "Lennart Bengtsson resigns"., thegwpg.org, may 5, 2014
8) Climate change scientist claims he has been forced from new job in 'McCarthy'-style witch-hunt by academics across the world, Mail Online, 15 May 2014
9) Scientists condemned for political bias on climate change, The Times, 17 May 2014

 

[Vigilante]

 

[IanC]

Your magic words: hiatus
My magic words: BTK

You don't UNDERSTAND the claims made about the BTK study.. If you did, you would answer the questions I asked you... Like why if the ocean storage has had the same rate since the 70s -- why did the effect of temperature just kick in around 2000? Or why did the storage rate FALL about the time you claim the ocean started to eat the warming?

or why did the ocean temps have poor correlation to volcanoes until the data was 'reanalyzed' for BTK.

 

[mamooth]

Everyone of those nasty letters he recieved ought to be released to the press. Threats and all.

But there were no threats. Not even Bengtsson said such a thing. The Times made that part up, and all the deniers here are happily parroting the lie. And none of them will dare not parrot the lie, because the denier cult has classified that lie as sacred dogma.

(It's also amusing how deniers depend almost entirely on two near-tabloids, the Murdoch Times and Der Spiegel.)

I agree the letters should be posted. But they won't, because that would embarrass Bengtsson mightily, when it gets exposed that he was declaring persecution over polite letters. Why else would Bengtsson be hiding them?

So, if you can't do science, just scream you're being persecuted. That way, you don't even have to try to do science. It's the denier way.

 

[skookerasbil]

Everyone of those nasty letters he recieved ought to be released to the press. Threats and all.

But there were no threats. Not even Bengtsson said such a thing. The Times made that part up, and all the deniers here are happily parroting the lie. And none of them will dare not parrot the lie, because the denier cult has classified that lie as sacred dogma.

(It's also amusing how deniers depend almost entirely on two near-tabloids, the Murdoch Times and Der Spiegel.)

I agree the letters should be posted. But they won't, because that would embarrass Bengtsson mightily, when it gets exposed that he was declaring persecution over polite letters. Why else would Bengtsson be hiding them?

So, if you can't do science, just scream you're being persecuted. That way, you don't even have to try to do science. It's the denier way.

s0n.....do you have a plate in your head?


Nobody cares about the science. How is it matttering in 2014?? We'd like to know?