Gee what a surprise- scientists covered up damaging climate review

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by g8orbill, May 16, 2014.

  1. g8orbill
    Offline

    g8orbill Gators VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    68,153
    Likes Received:
    3,984
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Clermont, Fl
    Ratings Received:
    +7,877
    http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/science/article4091344.ece

    Research which heaped doubt on the rate of global warming was deliberately suppressed by scientists because it was “less than helpful” to their cause, it was claimed last night.

    In an echo of the infamous “Climategate” scandal at the University of East Anglia, one of the world’s top academic journals rejected the work of five experts after a reviewer privately denounced it as “harmful”.
    • Like Like x 1
  2. g8orbill
    Offline

    g8orbill Gators VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    68,153
    Likes Received:
    3,984
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Clermont, Fl
    Ratings Received:
    +7,877
  3. wygator
    Offline

    wygator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    6,102
    Likes Received:
    242
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +663
    • Winner Winner x 1
  4. gatormonk
    Offline

    gatormonk Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    677
    Likes Received:
    73
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings Received:
    +174
    This, Prof Bengtsson told the Times, was "utterly unacceptable" and "an indication of how science is gradually being influenced by political views."

    Gradually?
  5. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    32,555
    Likes Received:
    2,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +4,274
    This whole AGW thing is an invention of the ultra liberals (commies) in the UN... through a cleverly disguised scam called the Kyoto Treaty/Accord/Protocol in an effort to extort vast sums of monies from American businesses, only, in order to create an stable amount of cash flow for the UN to be self funded and self reliant/independent entity. Not dependent on 'donations' from sponsor countries, but cash solvent through global tax scams like carbon credits..

    This in only their first step to becoming the global authority and police thereby emasculating countries, especially the United States, from any unilateral military, sovereignty. In other words - these people like Al Gore and Hilary Clinton want a global 'New World Order' where the U.S. is simply the money bags (financier via revenue to the UN, in taxes) that makes it financially feasible for this NWO to come to fruition. All the while we slip into a slow and painful tax-topia for the UN and the ultra Liberals in Washington to slowly defang military, our independence, our Liberty and sovereignty...
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. wygator
    Offline

    wygator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    6,102
    Likes Received:
    242
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +663
    Dr. Roy Spencer, NASA satellite temp record director: '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 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.'
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. wygator
    Offline

    wygator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    6,102
    Likes Received:
    242
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +663
    Dr. Mike Hulme, UN IPCC scientist, condemned climate scientists who 'believe it’s their role to pass public judgment on whether a scientific colleague should offer advice to political, public or a campaigning organisations and to harass that scientist until they ‘fall into line’. He added that the episode said much about how politicised climate science had become and “how some scientists remain blind to their own biases”.
  8. gatordowneast
    Offline

    gatordowneast Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    11,748
    Likes Received:
    303
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +985
    Follow the money.
  9. GatorFanCF
    Offline

    GatorFanCF Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2007
    Messages:
    3,741
    Likes Received:
    157
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +612
    Yep. Who knew. .. non - capitalists can be greedy, deceitful, jerks too? Shocker.
  10. GatorNavy
    Offline

    GatorNavy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    1,903
    Likes Received:
    2,715
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Maryland, USA
    Ratings Received:
    +2,717
    Climate change is less like a science and more like a religion.
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  11. rivergator
    Offline

    rivergator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    31,007
    Likes Received:
    321
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,465
    http://www.theguardian.com/environm...rdoch-media-hypes-lone-climate-denial-big-oil
  12. rivergator
    Offline

    rivergator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    31,007
    Likes Received:
    321
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,465
    And directly from the publisher who rejected it. It includes the report from the scientists on exactly why it was rejected.


    http://ioppublishing.org/newsDetails/statement-from-iop-publishing-on-story-in-the-times
  13. gatorplank
    Offline

    gatorplank Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2011
    Messages:
    1,045
    Likes Received:
    107
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +336
    Even atheists believe in an apocalypse.
  14. rivergator
    Offline

    rivergator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    31,007
    Likes Received:
    321
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,465
    Usually these things come from the Daily Mail. It claims some new scientific study had debunked global warming. It quickly spreads thru the internet, all the rightwing sites. Then the scientists who actually wrote study issue a statement saying "No, that is not close to what we found."
    In this case, it's Murdoch's other paper, The Times, claiming that his research was rejected simply because it disagreed with global warming. As I've already posted, that isn't close to what the scientists who rejected it said.

    But this stuff will continue. The other day, the conservative Daily Caller had a story saying:
    The scientist who did the work and wrote the study responded:

    http://mediamatters.org/blog/2014/05/16/scientist-calls-out-daily-callers-complete-dist/199348
  15. g8trjax
    Offline

    g8trjax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2007
    Messages:
    2,925
    Likes Received:
    74
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings Received:
    +290
    All the smarty pants scientists still can't answer the most pertinent questions, what is the optimal global temperature and how much is it going to cost the US taxpayers to arrive at this state of temperature nirvana?
  16. Gatoragman
    Offline

    Gatoragman VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2008
    Messages:
    1,081
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Ratings Received:
    +43
    Isn't most of the theory of AGW and it's effect on the world based off scientific assumptions made by climate scientist? Hasn't alot of the assumptions and effects of AGW not occured at the rate the assumptions and models created by climate scientist led us to believe? Sounds to me that there is no absolute in this theory and these experts and the minons pushing AGW should at least be open and honest to the facts of the last 20 years that were only assumptions when these models were produced.
  17. fredsanford
    Offline

    fredsanford VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    11,505
    Likes Received:
    155
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +974
    1. Right wingers latch onto some piece of nonsense on the Internet to validate their worldview.
    2. Piece of Internet nonsense is quickly debunked.
    3. Right wingers continue to argue what the debunked nonsense indicates.
    4. Repeat.
    • Winner Winner x 1
  18. wygator
    Offline

    wygator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2010
    Messages:
    6,102
    Likes Received:
    242
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +663
    A graph prepared by Dr. Roy Spencer. 73 climate models vs. observations. See the catastrophic warming?

    [​IMG]
    Dr. James Hansen was probably the leading proponent of the whole APGW regimen as director of NASA/GISS. He proposed three scenarios. "A" scenario was if no changes were made and indicated rapid warming. "B" scenario was if some reduction in growth of CO2 were achieved. "C" scenario was if CO2 was held at 2000 levels. Despite the fact that CO2 has continued to increase, actual temperatures are below his scenario "C" projections:

    [​IMG]

    Any reasonable person looking at the actual trends on this graph would see no reason for alarm.
    • Like Like x 2
  19. Gatoragman
    Offline

    Gatoragman VIP Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2008
    Messages:
    1,081
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Ratings Received:
    +43
    Liberal left wingers say anything over and over and over and over until it becomes accepted fact, whether it is based in reality or not!!!
  20. tegator80
    Offline

    tegator80 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2007
    Messages:
    4,916
    Likes Received:
    884
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Richmond, VA
    Ratings Received:
    +1,786
    C'mon, can't you see that the models replicate the actual conditions to a tea? It is obvious that AGW is REAL and that we need to bankrupt the US in order to keep it from blowing up.

    ANYONE can see that!;)
    Last edited: May 19, 2014

Share This Page