Cultist caught lying & manipulating science they don’t like – again

Earlier this week I read about how one of the more renown former proponents of the AGW-mageddon preached by the cultist was rail-roaded for no longer being a true believer, but didn’t write about it because it would be more of the same behavior you see the AGW cultists exhibit whenever someone leaves their plantation. However, as another revelation related to Lenart Bengtsson and research he and some colleagues that feel science should rule over collectivist agenda, has come out, I feel this is writing about. At issue is the suppression of a research report that disagreed with the doom & gloom bullshit the cultists rely on to sell more collectivism.

Sure you can focus on the AGW predictions angle, but I saw something else, far more important, in the story. A little bit of background:

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”.

Reporting facts, and more importantly, the fact that the AGW cultists are incapable of anything scientific considering the principle clearly states that when you predict something and it doesn’t happen you are wrong, apparently is a harmful thing to the cause. And the cause can be interpreted as two things, neither of which has anything to do with science or actually doing anything to prevent the climate Armageddon predicted by the watermelons. The harm here is being done to the agenda, which has, and will always be, collectivist power expansion and control of the masses. Whatever “crisis du jour” the watermelons try to sell people to foist their agenda on us, the solution always is more taxes, bigger & more powerful nanny state, less freedom of any kind for the people, and the notion that those that deny them this desire are motivated by ill will.

Consensus science, is junk science. A scientific process that relies on a peer review system where the connected decide something “damaging” to the cause, and then a cause that’s ideological and political and not scientific, isn’t the sort of science they want, is also junk science. AGW science is junk science. Period. This shit can’t die a quick enough death for me, so we can turn to Ocean Acidification and that attempt to further damage scientific credibility. Collectivism sucks.

Comments are closed.

  1. Hal_10000

    This story is bullshit. Here is IOP’s release of the *entire* referee’s report:

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

    The paper does not make any significant attempt at explaining or understanding the differences, it rather puts out a very simplistic negative message giving at least the implicit impression of “errors” being made within and between these assessments, e.g. by emphasising the overlap of authors on two of the three studies.

    What a paper with this message should have done instead is recognising and explaining a series of “reasons” and “causes” for the differences.

    Summarising, the simplistic 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.
    One cannot and should not simply interpret the IPCCs ranges for AR4 or 5 as confidence intervals or pdfs and hence they are not directly comparable to observation based intervals (as e.g. in Otto et al).

    In the same way that one cannot expect a nice fit between observational studies and the CMIP5 models.

    A careful, constructive, and comprehensive analysis of what these ranges mean, and how they come to be different, and what underlying problems these comparisons bring would indeed be a valuable contribution to the debate.

    In other words, he did a shit analysis, comparing things that can’t really be compared without a LOT of work. He then slagged the research instead of trying to figure out why these assessments differ. The referee noted that his was an important issue but that he had nothing to address it. And when his crap paper was rejected, he selectively quoted the referee’s report to make it sounds like he did great science and it was rejected because it was politically incorrect.

    This is the climate debate in a nutshell. Do shit work, selectively quote, cherry pick and proclaim that the other side doesn’t know how to do science. It would be laughable if it weren’t so destructive. And this isn’t the first time or even the hundredth time it has happened. And I can expect this story, despite its complete falsity, to be added to the list of equally false reasons why global warming is a myth.

    Hot! Thumb up 5

  2. Hal_10000

    Hal’s rule: before I post something I click the “about this website” button to make sure it’s not satire. Or the Daily Mail.

    Thumb up 1

  3. AlexInCT *

    Yeah sure, but the problem you have is that you think you have a clue Hal when all you are is an apologist for the marxists. Others are reporting this story too, and the lame attempt by AGW cultists like you are falling flat. The left made fun of a tabloid when they exposed Edward’s affair too. And they made fun of Drudge when he did the Lewisnki story they would not cover. BTW, your dismissal of the source feels a lot like the AGW peer review system’s approach to work they feel “undermines” their agenda.

    Don’t worry. We know how you pseudo-science types work, and the truth is coming out regardless of what people like you say or do. The AGW government freight train is derailed and lying on its side, and no amount of pretending will get it running again.

    And CM, pull Man-Bear-Pig’s cock out of your ass and Obama’s out of your mouth. You look too stupid to live with them playing cards on your bareback like that.

    Hot! Thumb up 11

  4. Hal_10000

    So you don’t address the substance of my rebuttal — i.e, the full referee’s report — but simply link another website reporting the same story with the same lacuna?

    Thumb up 3

  5. AlexInCT *

    So you don’t address the substance of my rebuttal — i.e, the full referee’s report —

    Why would I bother rebutting what amounts to excuse making by people with an agenda that don’t like the message? A message I repeat that they have been predicting for 2 plus decades and have yet to get right even fucking once. Every other stupid end of times cult has at least had some people do the rest of us a favor and off their stupid asses off. Wish the AGW cultists would do the same.

    I have seen this same “the other side didn’t do any science” bullshit spouted every time they dismissed something that didn’t push their bullshit. Since the “It’s evil oil money” won’t apply here, this is the fallback. Even worse, this comes from people that cheat, that constantly lie, are experts at getting it wrong, and yet, they pretend they are the ones in the right. I have gone down this road before and it leads nowhere. You don’t argue the merits of dog fucking with anyone that feels fucking dogs is cool, and you don’t do it with AGW cultists and their circle jerk either, when they put out propaganda to dismiss things that undermine their narrative.

    Hot! Thumb up 7

  6. AlexInCT *

    Yeah, let’s not bogged down in ‘detail’. ;-)

    Absolutely never get bogged down in detail with your kind. Especially when you cultists focus on a few tiny details that allows you to pretend you have a clue/argument to make, while ignoring the other mountain of details that dismiss the idiotic case. The cultists want everyone focused on the details they believe they can manipulate to make their case, but nothing else.

    They are all evil, that’s what counts.

    Says they idiot that pretends the sun has no, or negligible, impact on climate, but man does. And every day, we learn how much the sun impacts everything, from lightning on earth to Jupiter’s red spot, but you cultists, pretending to care about science and “details”, only want to focus on bullshit you hope will fool the mush-minded.

    Your kind is only worthy of insult.

    Thumb up 2

  7. stogy

    Ah! If you can’t win the argument, Alex, then make sure no-one does by burning down the house, plough salt into the earth underneath, and cover it all with six inches of solid lead. Then pour gasoline all over it and set it alight once more just in case.

    And what a wonderful reminder of why I miss this place! Just checked in for a bit of a laugh and glad to say that Alex didn’t disappoint! It’s like when you get those classic old reader’s digests in the doctor’s surgery – can’t beat them, can’t join them, can’t laugh with them, just at them. Really, just at them

    Fantastic stuff, Alex. Classic caught out, pants down, once-around the pool table stuff!

    Classy work indeed!

    Hot! Thumb up 4

  8. hist_ed

    So HAL, let’s say what you have written is true: A well known scientist produced a paper that was not up to snuff for the journal to which he submitted it. Does this justify his excoriation by the rest of the climate community? He joined a skeptic leaning group and then was run out of town on a rail. Shouldn’t the response have been a tad bit different?

    Thumb up 7

  9. Hal_10000

    hist_ed, it woudl not justify it. I’m dubious of the story given the source, but it would be inexcusable. And I have seen some truly disgusting statements and tactics by the pro-AGW side lately.

    Thumb up 1

  10. AlexInCT *

    Ah! If you can’t win the argument, Alex,

    Actually, my side is winning and the cult is on it’s death bed, but you can keep pretending otherwise…

    Fantastic stuff, Alex. Classic caught out, pants down, once-around the pool table stuff!

    Yeah sure. Tell yourself that if it helps you sleep better, but the truth is that there is no way to spin yet another example of the bias by the cultists and their dying religion.

    Hot! Thumb up 10

  11. CM

    Says they idiot that pretends the sun has no, or negligible, impact on climate, but man does.

    I’d really appreciate it if you could stop sending me private messages about how much you enjoy fucking male goats. I’m not interested. Thanks.

    Thumb up 0

  12. Hal_10000

    Says they idiot that pretends the sun has no, or negligible, impact on climate, but man does.

    No one has ever claimed this. What they have claimed is that the sun is not producing the warming we have been seeing for the last two centuries. That theory has been tested and proven false.

    Thumb up 1

  13. Dave D

    I guess I never kew that David Suzuki was such a partisan hack! The REALLY funny thing about his thinking is that he has ZERO problem saddling our grandkids with debt/inflation to pay for liberal Candyland, but we have to do something about this problem for the same reason. Hypocrite……

    Thumb up 2

  14. Hal_10000

    Well, I’m sure arrested everyone who disagrees with Suzuki will solve the problem. And it won’t make people think *at all* that this is about government power, not science. What a jackass.

    Thumb up 1

  15. AlexInCT *

    No one has ever claimed this. What they have claimed is that the sun is not producing the warming we have been seeing for the last two centuries. That theory has been tested and proven false.

    No, Hal. What the cultists are claiming is that the sun has negligible impact on anything that’s happening, despite the fact that we are seeing all the other planets affected by it and other cosmic phenomenon. They do this because admitting that the sun drives 95% (I am being generous because I believe the number is closer to 100%) of anything climate related, in the entire solar system, would basically kill their ability to sell their “MOAR TYRANNICAL COLLECTIVSM!!!1!!” solution for whatever their doomsday scenario du jour is. Nobody has tested and proven the sun’s impact as false. What they have done is lied about it because otherwise they have no scam to sell.

    Thumb up 3

  16. Hal_10000

    despite the fact that we are seeing all the other planets affected by it and other cosmic phenomenon.

    But they aren’t. This is one of those “facts” on the anti- side that just isn’t. If it were the sun affecting us, we would see a very different pattern of temperatures.

    Thumb up 1

  17. AlexInCT *

    But they aren’t. This is one of those “facts” on the anti- side that just isn’t.

    Right, so the scientist pointing out the fact that they are seeing warming and other such effects due to solar activity are just pulling shit out of their ass. More likely than not what we have is people that don’t want to understand the impact of the sun, because they are far more focused on pushing the manmade garbage, and have a vested interest in pretending there is no impact.

    If it were the sun affecting us, we would see a very different pattern of temperatures.

    Are you seriously making that point? Based on what real facts and data? The bullshit climate models that have so far been completely wrong about anything going on climate wise? The crap sold by the idiots that predicted waterworld would come about, in a decade or less even, unless we allowed them to rob us of our freedoms, prosperity, and modernity, more than some 15 years ago? Maybe you are going off the cherry picked and manipulated data that the climate cultists conveniently misplaced/destroyed and now tell us we should just take for granted? Is this based on the pseudo-science that ignores the impact of the oceans and of water vapor – the most abundant greenhouse gas – because neither are things they can blame man for? Or is this based on some astrological observations? It’s the age of Aquarius, so the sun ain’t playing harsh no mo! Your claim we would be seeing different activity/effects, because of minimally understood activity from the sun, is just plain ludicrous.

    The point is precisely that we have no fucking clue how much impact the sun has on our climate. We are still discovering stuff about the impact the sun has on our planet as we go, based on the limited amount of work going on, daily. The existing cultist movement has downplayed the impact of the sun, on purpose, undermining any efforts to actually do any serious and continuing research on solar impact. The energy output of the sun, even when it is practically considered to be dormant, is insane. To pretend that can be waved off is insnae. Especially when what we remain focused on amounts to a trace gas, in an abysmally misunderstood system, in the grand scheme of things.

    The fact of the matter is that the entire AGW cult bullshit amounts to nothing but a new manmade doomsday religion, based on a lot of cherry picked pseudo-science, to sell an end goal. To me it has been the most damaging thing to ever happen to science, the integrity of the scientific process and scientific research, and to the scientific community at large. This doomsday cult’s agenda has caused incalculable damage to the integrity of both the scientific community and the scientific process. The crap produced, the constant predictions of imminent doom, none of which has come even close to reality, should have sent the people claiming they understand what they are doing back to the drawing board. That’s the basis of the scientific process: if you make a prediction/hypothesis and your prediction/hypothesis fails the test, especially as horriblly as the AGW predicitons/hypotheses have failed, it is obvious that you are wrong. The failure is so blatant that even the layman has come to see that there is an agenda, which is the priority and comes before real science, behind this bullshit. The exclusive focus on CO2 and manmade warming is a dead giveaway that this AGW shit is all nonsense. This cult is nothing but a vehicle to push a collectivist agenda in look of a global crisis to sell what they otherwise could not be foisted on the masses.

    What we have here, the call to ignore the sun in order to focus on man, is tantamount to someone telling us to ignore the smoke from a forest fire and to only pay attention to the single smoldering cigarette on the ground. It is bogus and transparent.

    Hot! Thumb up 5

  18. CM

    Based on what real facts and data?……..Says the guy who NEVER produces any facts and any data, relying entirely instead on accusations, insinuations, and allegations, and generally just making shit up (that I ever said that the sun has no, or negligible, impact on climate is just pure fantasy).

    Thumb up 2

  19. Hal_10000

    Right, so the scientist pointing out the fact that they are seeing warming and other such effects due to solar activity are just pulling shit out of their ass

    Yes: http://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-other-planets-solar-system.htm

    Not all the planets are warming. Nor is there any indication that the warming on any particular solar body has anything to do with the Sun. News flash: we monitor the Sun. We have several satellites devoted to studying the sun. They point at it 24 hours a day. If the sun were causing global warming, we’d know it.

    if you make a prediction/hypothesis and your prediction/hypothesis fails the test, especially as horriblly as the AGW predicitons/hypotheses have failed, it is obvious that you are wrong.

    Alex, you’re just wrong. No how matter how much you try to scream the heavens down, you are just wrong. The models have overpredicted warming … slightly. On the other hand, the first models were made 80 years ago before we even were sure global warming was happening. And they corrected predicted the rise in temperature of the last century, if not the exact amount. Correctly. Predicted. See?

    If the sun were causing global warming, we would expect the temperatures to follow patterns in solar activity. They don’t. Not at all. Solar activity was basically stable for the thirty years while temperatures shot up.

    So let’s score this:

    1) The “it’s the sun” model predicts that temperatures should not have risen for thirty years and should be falling now. Instead they shot up for thirty years and have risen more slowly recently.

    2) the AGW hypothesis predicted temperatures would rise with rising CO2 in the atmosphere. And they did. Models from TWENTY YEARS AGO did overpredict a bit.

    No one has ever claimed that any computer model could perfectly predict global temperatures. But those models have done a massively better job that the denialist models which completely utterly failed. Let’s say the AGW models predict 50% of the temperature variation. “It’s the Sun” has correctly predicted 0%.

    It’s like you predicted the Yankees would win 60 games and then criticize me because I predicted they would 100 and they only won 95.

    What we have here, the call to ignore the sun in order to focus on man, is tantamount to someone telling us to ignore the smoke from a forest fire and to only pay attention to the single smoldering cigarette on the ground. It is bogus and transparent.

    Again, no one is ignoring the Sun. You’re burning a straw man again. What we’re saying is that if the woods are on fire, maybe the box of matches and cans of gasoline had something to do with it.

    But I’m arguing a moot point. You don’t think it’s the sun. Today you claim that the planet is warming because of the Sun. Tomorrow, you’ll be back to claiming the Earth isn’t warming. The next day you’ll be blaming leprechauns. Your rant reveals the real thought process: that the liberals can’t be right. That Algore can’t be right. That if your political opponents insist that the house is on fire you’re going to stay sitting on the couch reading the newspaper ‘cuz collectivism or something.

    Thumb up 3

  20. Xetrov

    The models have overpredicted warming … slightly.

    And Michael Moore is overweight…slightly.

    http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/09/12/climate-models-wildly-overestimated-global-warming-study-finds/

    …a new study in the journal Nature Climate Change that compared 117 climate predictions made in the 1990’s to the actual amount of warming. Out of 117 predictions, the study’s author told FoxNews.com, three were roughly accurate and 114 overestimated the amount of warming. On average, the predictions forecasted two times more global warming than actually occurred.

    Thumb up 3

  21. AlexInCT *

    Says the guy who NEVER produces any facts and any data,

    Hah hah hah hah! This coming from the religious fanatic that pretends his cult still has ground to stand on after they have been caught lying, cheating, manipulating the truth and what people get to hear about the truth, destroying the integrity of the scientific community, taking money from the biggest special interest out there to finance this campaign of lies, and have yet to get anything they predicted right. No CM, the problem is with the fact that you choose to ignore the facts and data and pretend none has been presented because otherwise you would have to admit that your support is not based on anything scientific, but on your ideological desire for the cult’s big government solution.

    The models have overpredicted warming … slightly.

    Right, because the difference between the polar caps all melting – that was predicted, over and over -and the oceans rising and swallowing up all coastal cities, and nothing even close to anything like that happening in the timeframe the cultists put out there, is just a meaningless & marginal mistake that shouldn’t affect the cultist’s credibility in the least. You fanatics can’t make a better caricature of yourself if you were trying to do so on purpose. Lame.

    Thumb up 2

  22. Hal_10000

    Seriously, Xetrov, you’re quoting Christy? And seriously, Alex, you’re talking about lying cheating? You want to talk about a fucking climategate? Christy and Spencer spent years claiming the satellite data proved there was no global warming. But they wouldn’t share their data. When they did, it turned out they made a sign error in their correction for orbital decay. Once that was fixed, their satellite data matched the ground data perfectly. He is one to talk about models.

    You can compare that to the so-called “climategate” where no errors were fond and nine investigations cleared them, including the one that climate skeptic Tom Coburn called for.

    Right, because the difference between the polar caps all melting – that was predicted, over and over -and the oceans rising and swallowing up all coastal cities, and nothing even close to anything like that happening in the timeframe the cultists put out there

    Again, why don’t you stick to things that were actually predicted rather than things you imagine were predicted. The models predicted 0.2 degrees per decade. We’ve gotten 0.15. Your side predicted 0 or negative warming. We’ve gotten 0.15.

    Thumb up 0

  23. Hal_10000

    Incidentally, while we’re talking about the polar caps. One scientist predicted we’d get an ice-free arctic this decade. Most claim this is decades away. And we have seen — as predicted — a long decay in sea ice area and volume. By contrast, your side was screaming last year about how the polar ice caps were recovering … because they were at one of their lowest levels on record but had increased over the catastrophic 2012 ice season.

    Thumb up 1

  24. Xetrov

    You might as well go back to Mediamatters.org, CM.

    Seriously, Xetrov, you’re quoting Christy?

    Seriously, Hal, you’re quoting “consensus”? Were almost all of the models wrong? Yes. A majority by more than half of the warming they predicted. That’s provable, because you can go look at what they predicted, and then look at the actual warming. This would be one of those go look it up yourself things, I did. Saying they were off “slightly” is disingenuous.

    This is why I never get into these bullshit “debates” anymore. One side blindly throws up figures, stats, arguments, the other side blindly throws up their own figures, stats, arguments, or just outright disregards the other side, and neither side gives a shit about what the other side posted, whether it’s true or not because someone somewhere wrote a debunking article about it. You (Hal) can claim impartiality or objectivity all you want, but you, and a majority of the AGW supporters are just as entrenched in your ideology on the subject as the majority of AGW deniers are. Neither side is ever going to come together because brains on both sides are shut off. It’s no different from the poison that is killing this country.

    Fuck it.

    Thumb up 5

  25. Hal_10000

    The actual rise in temperatures is at the lower edge of the uncertainties in the projection, but still within them. Funny, but when someone says, “we’ll get warming of 0.3 degrees per decade give or taken a couple of tenths” and we “only” get 0.15 per decade, my response is not “you’re completely full of shit”. That’s especially true when you’re talking about something like the climate, which is incredibly difficult to predict. Can we only believe in AGW if the models are perfect?

    If the current cycle of La Ninas ends, we would go back up toward the middle. That’s assuming, of course, that the La Ninas aren’t themselves a response to warming, which Mann thinks they are (although this is hotly disputed right now).

    Thumb up 2

  26. CM

    I love that Alex did EXACTLY what I said he does. No facts, no data, nothing but more of the same.

    You might as well go back to Mediamatters.org, CM.

    Right, because a body of peer-reviewed published science (which is explained at skeptical science) is EXACTLY the same as a partisan political opinion (which I don’t believe I’ve ever actually relied on at Mediamatters, but I’m still waiting for you to demonstrate otherwise).

    Seriously, Hal, you’re quoting “consensus”?

    Does this allergy to scientific consensus apply elsewhere? You won’t fly in planes because there is a consensus surrounding aerothermodynamics? You’ll only accept science where there is genuine meaningful disagreement amongst scientists?
    The whole “consensus” ‘argument’ is woeful. It’s just so very desperate. It’s a very weak attempt to deal with the fact that the big issues in climate science are simply not in dispute.

    This is why I never get into these bullshit “debates” anymore. One side blindly throws up figures, stats, arguments, the other side blindly throws up their own figures, stats, arguments, or just outright disregards the other side, and neither side gives a shit about what the other side posted, whether it’s true or not because someone somewhere wrote a debunking article about it.

    This is the real problem – you and others give nonsense equal weighting to the debunking of said nonsense. It doesn’t even remotely reflect reality. Like Alex pretending that the sun is being ignored. Presumably it’s impossible to debunk that because you’ll just give it equal weighting to Alex’s unfounded claim. Apparently it’s absolutely fine to just throw out any old nonsense you like.

    Sullivan isn’t wrong when he notes that the GOP is an extreme outlier among right-of-center parties in the Western world on this issue.

    Thumb up 1

  27. Hal_10000

    If you want to see what a real faux climate concern looks like, try overpopulation. The population panic mongers were telling us forty years ago that the Earth would basically be destroyed by 1990 because of overpopulation (in the best case scenario). While they were fretting and talking about forced sterilization, heroes like Norman Borlaug were going out and saving billion of lives. Through improved farming methods and the breeding of high-yield drought-resistant crops, we are now feeding more people than ever with less land use than fifty years ago. Population experts — not entomologists operating outside their sphere of knowledge — now think our population will level off at about 9 billion, which is very sustainable. In fact, some people are now worried about countries getting underpopulated because of low birth rates.

    Notice that they didn’t say “there’s no such thing as population growth”, which would be the equivalent of the anti-AGW position. They simply said it was solvable.

    The Prince of the Population Panic Poltroons was, of course, Paul Ehrlich, who famously lost the Simon-Ehrlich wager and wrote The Population Bomb predicting mass disaster. And here he is today on the radio spouting the same doom and gloom, citing the same bogus facts, making the same tired arguments. He says we have a billion people going hungry, ignoring that the number has gone down since he predicted the end of the world. He says overpopulation is making us eat too much meat, which is the opposite of true (if land use gets tight, meat gets more expensive).

    That is what alarmist climate bullshit looks like. If global warming had the kind of track record the population bombers do, we would be an ice age right now, not enjoying the warmest temperature in a millennium.

    Ehrlich is also a big reason why I reject doom and gloom climate scenarios. Ehrlich’s projections might have been right … in a vacuum. But at the time he was making them, people like Norman Borlaug were innovating the problem away, producing a Green Revolution that made Ehrlich look like the idiot he was. Ehrlich’s view was that human beings were passive creatures, like the insects he studies, who would just blindly overpopulate until they starved. This is why while I am quite adamant that global warming is real, I am not an alarmist on the subject. There are ways to deal with global warming, ways that all require ignoring collectivist solutions and gimmicks like electric cars that would cut our emissions a whopping 1%.

    Thumb up 0