Wednesday, June 11, 2014

Climategate II

A significant brouhaha about corruption in climate "science":
Climategate II And The Rise Of Climate McCarthyism
A climate scientist tried to publish a scientific paper in a leading climate science journal in which he suggests that the climate may be less sensitive to CO2 than generally claimed. His paper was rejected for explicitly political, not scientific, reasons.

"I had not expect(ed) such an enormous worldwide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life," he wrote in his resignation. 
"Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship." 
The actions of this once-peaceful community, he wrote in his resignation letter, now reminded him of McCarthyism. 
Bengtsson, 79, quoted in the Daily Mail, said it was "utterly unacceptable" to advise against publishing a paper on political grounds. He called it "an indication of how science is gradually being influenced by political views." 
"The reality" of climate, he said, "hasn't been keeping up with the (computer) models."
Judith Curry, climatologist and chairwoman of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, says the campaign against Bengtsson "a disgraceful display of climate McCarthyism by climate scientists, which has the potential to do as much harm to climate science as did the Climategate emails." 
Indeed, among warmists the only acceptable line of inquiry seems to be: Are you now, or have you ever been, a climate skeptic?

In an atmosphere like this, none of the "science" of "global warming" can be trusted. This is just Lysenkoism.

Even more disturbing is the silence of the scientific community about this breathtaking scandal. Silence is complicity, and suggests that scientists as a profession can't be trusted to tell the truth. 


  1. Actually, it's an insignificant storm in a teacup concerning getting papers published. The paper was rejected because it failed to advance knowledge and also contained errors.

    The comments of the two referees who advised rejection of the paper are given in full in the following link:

    I advise that the comments be read in full, before relying on selective 'quotes', particularly since the quote doesn't appear to in the referees' comments in the first place!

    Submitted papers are often rejected, often with suggestions as to how the paper could be improved (as with this paper). The authors didn't accept the referees"s comments, and one decided to complain to the mass media.

    1. Bonshit: "'s an insignificant storm in a teacup.."

      Ah! The timeworn "move on nothing to see here" tactic!

    2. It's an "insignificant storm in a teacup," which just happens to coincide with a resignation.

      AGW (or whatever artificial label they feel like applying this week...) is conformity of thought and redistribution of wealth in practice. Dissenting views will not be tolerated by the Marxists.

    3. Michael,

      Dissenting views are OK, provided they're supported by facts not opinions. Regardless of whether AGESCW is occurring or not, there's already a 'redistribution of wealth in practice' occurring, as fossil fuels become more difficult to recover and more expensive. If you're buying gasoline, some of your money is going indirectly to the Saudis who use part of the money in their sovereign wealth fund to buy up American infrastructure, and charge Americans for their use.

  2. I doubt this is going anywhere. Bengtsson joining the Global Warming Policy Foundation’s advisory council should immediately call into question the integrity of Bengtsson’s work. The Global Warming Policy Foundation is an anonymously funded climate “think tank” started by a British politician with financial interests in Europe's most polluting coal fired power plants, and whose stock and trade seems to be the promotion of fossil fuel industry “research”. Hell, they even rent their office space from the Institute of Materials, Minerals, and Mining. The fact that Benstsson would submit an error filled paper and cry McCarthyism upon its rejection after getting involved with the GWPF stinks to hi heaven. As you always say, follow the money.


    1. Commissar Boggs, Ministry of TruthJune 11, 2014 at 8:11 AM

      Popito... dumped again, eh?

      [A]ssociation fallacy is an inductive informal fallacy of the type hasty generalization or red herring which asserts that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another, merely by an irrelevant association. The two types are sometimes referred to as guilt by association and honor by association
      --- Wiki: Association fallacy

      [A]d hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument...
      --- Wiki: Ad hominem

      Power washer's ready...

      Trolls suck.” (

    2. All you did was cut and paste to suggest these are irrelevant facts and irrelevant associations. Is that really the best you can do? Or where you just looking for an excuse to let everyone know you’re still really into potty humor? I looks like you really do revert back to childlike ways when you get old. I thought I would enjoy watching you get more and more senile as the months go by; turns out it’s really just kind of sad. I just want to pat you on the head and say “there, there”.


  3. Commissar Boggs, Ministry of TruthJune 11, 2014 at 8:02 AM

    Just a couple of "observations" from the IOP Publishing statement (linked by Bonfire the Troll who apparently can't even read it) and one of the referees, if I may be so bold....

    Referee 1:
    • "The comparison between observation based estimates of ECS and TCR [blah] and model based estimates is comparing apples and pears, as the models are calculating true global means, whereas the observations have limited coverage

    Translation: The computah model cackalations are Truth, the data are Untidy. Who ya gonna believe, Bunky... the cackalations or your lyin' eyes?

    • "[S]implistic comparison of ranges from AR4, AR5, and Otto et al, combined with the statement they 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"

    Translation: Don't feed the skeptics. We have our story, and we're sticking to it.

    Also, you may be interested in another recent paper by Lovejoy (Climate Science). Using "proxies" (meaning data other than the data of interest, like tree rings, that may or may not have some meaningful correlation with the data of interest, e.g., temperature) and creative statistical models that assume global temperature changes result from a linear combination of human economic activity "proxies" and "measurement error" Lovejoy found that....

    Economic Activity Causes Global Warming.

    No discernible agenda there, eh?


    1. Senile old fart,

      I read the referees' comments. I understand what they're saying. I decided not to 'cut and paste' (your speciality), because I'd include all the comments.

      Anyway. Lovejoy correlated global temperatures with economic activity, because economic activity correlates with energy consumption, which correlates with carbon dioxide emissions up to now. Assuming that AGESCW (anthropogenic global earth systems climate warming) is happening - which I believe is true, based on the well known and well understood physical properties of greenhouse gases.

      And I think that we need to remove the nexus between economic activity and carbon dioxide emissions by investing in renewable energy sources.

    2. Commissar Boggs, Ministry of TruthJune 11, 2014 at 9:26 AM

      bumfire: "economic activity correlates [gubba wubba bubba]"

      Translation: Assuming the model is right, the model is right.

      Sick with stealing umbrellas, bumfire. You're probably better at it.

    3. Senile old fart,

      LOL. OK if I sue you for libel? Now you're accusing me of theft, a lie.

      Anyway. I was only stating Lovejoy's argument.