New Study shows the Climate Models the U.N. used "fundamentally wrong".

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

These are all pretty vague accusations though aren't they.

If there were only a hundred scientists in the world - this might be of significance, but we're talking about tens of thousands of people, aren't we...

I can continue to post stories like this. It isn't just a few scientists like you imply. Anyone that does not hold with the idea that man is causing GW risks losing his ability to practice in his field. They have been bullied into silence.

That's only true because you take these disparate articles and extrapolate them across the entire scientific community as though they are somehow representative.

[GaryC 7]

These are all pretty vague accusations though aren't they.

If there were only a hundred scientists in the world - this might be of significance, but we're talking about tens of thousands of people, aren't we...

I can continue to post stories like this. It isn't just a few scientists like you imply. Anyone that does not hold with the idea that man is causing GW risks losing his ability to practice in his field. They have been bullied into silence.

That's only true because you take these disparate articles and extrapolate them across the entire scientific community as though they are somehow representative.

There are literally hundreds of stories like these. They are not isolated instances. You have to much faith in the BS the media has been feeding you. Look for yourself.

[Peikko 1,575]

The employees of the metreological office could not do their job properly if they were bullied into accepting forumla that they fundamentally disagreed with so while it may seem possible that they might hold a different point of view than that stated by the management, realistically it is simply impossible. The UK metreological office is a well respected body, not simply by those in the UK but world wide. They have provided data for all kinds of purposes including military and operational for both airlines and shipping. If you seriously think they would take on such a task while promoting a dodgy premise on global climatic change and retain credibilty, well, what can one say?

Secondly, if the people that are held up as 'credible skeptics' can time and time again be found to be both wanting in the necessary scientific fields of study and also manipulating their skepticism for other purposes (or being manipulated by those with an agenda) which time and time again we have seen that they can, then one should necessarily conclude that the 'evidence' for skepticism is skating on very, very thin ice. Essentially, it's flat earth syndrome.

[GaryC 7]

Climate of Fear

Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence.

by RICHARD LINDZEN

Wednesday, April 12, 2006 12:01 A.M. EDT

There have been repeated claims that this past year's hurricane activity was another sign of human-induced climate change. Everything from the heat wave in Paris to heavy snows in Buffalo has been blamed on people burning gasoline to fuel their cars, and coal and natural gas to heat, cool and electrify their homes. Yet how can a barely discernible, one-degree increase in the recorded global mean temperature since the late 19th century possibly gain public acceptance as the source of recent weather catastrophes? And how can it translate into unlikely claims about future catastrophes?

The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle of alarmism. Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes. After all, who puts money into science--whether for AIDS, or space, or climate--where there is nothing really alarming? Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today. It can also be seen in heightened spending on solar, wind, hydrogen, ethanol and clean coal technologies, as well as on other energy-investment decisions.

But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.

To understand the misconceptions perpetuated about climate science and the climate of intimidation, one needs to grasp some of the complex underlying scientific issues. First, let's start where there is agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming.

If the models are correct, global warming reduces the temperature differences between the poles and the equator. When you have less difference in temperature, you have less excitation of extratropical storms, not more. And, in fact, model runs support this conclusion. Alarmists have drawn some support for increased claims of tropical storminess from a casual claim by Sir John Houghton of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that a warmer world would have more evaporation, with latent heat providing more energy for disturbances. The problem with this is that the ability of evaporation to drive tropical storms relies not only on temperature but humidity as well, and calls for drier, less humid air. Claims for starkly higher temperatures are based upon there being more humidity, not less--hardly a case for more storminess with global warming.

So how is it that we don't have more scientists speaking up about this junk science? It's my belief that many scientists have been cowed not merely by money but by fear. An example: Earlier this year, Texas Rep. Joe Barton issued letters to paleoclimatologist Michael Mann and some of his co-authors seeking the details behind a taxpayer-funded analysis that claimed the 1990s were likely the warmest decade and 1998 the warmest year in the last millennium. Mr. Barton's concern was based on the fact that the IPCC had singled out Mr. Mann's work as a means to encourage policy makers to take action. And they did so before his work could be replicated and tested--a task made difficult because Mr. Mann, a key IPCC author, had refused to release the details for analysis. The scientific community's defense of Mr. Mann was, nonetheless, immediate and harsh. The president of the National Academy of Sciences--as well as the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union--formally protested, saying that Rep. Barton's singling out of a scientist's work smacked of intimidation.

All of which starkly contrasts to the silence of the scientific community when anti-alarmists were in the crosshairs of then-Sen. Al Gore. In 1992, he ran two congressional hearings during which he tried to bully dissenting scientists, including myself, into changing our views and supporting his climate alarmism. Nor did the scientific community complain when Mr. Gore, as vice president, tried to enlist Ted Koppel in a witch hunt to discredit anti-alarmist scientists--a request that Mr. Koppel deemed publicly inappropriate. And they were mum when subsequent articles and books by Ross Gelbspan libelously labeled scientists who differed with Mr. Gore as stooges of the fossil-fuel industry.

Sadly, this is only the tip of a non-melting iceberg. In Europe, Henk Tennekes was dismissed as research director of the Royal Dutch Meteorological Society after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Aksel Winn-Nielsen, former director of the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization, was tarred by Bert Bolin, first head of the IPCC, as a tool of the coal industry for questioning climate alarmism. Respected Italian professors Alfonso Sutera and Antonio Speranza disappeared from the debate in 1991, apparently losing climate-research funding for raising questions.

And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest. However, even when such papers are published, standards shift. When I, with some colleagues at NASA, attempted to determine how clouds behave under varying temperatures, we discovered what we called an "Iris Effect," wherein upper-level cirrus clouds contracted with increased temperature, providing a very strong negative climate feedback sufficient to greatly reduce the response to increasing CO2. Normally, criticism of papers appears in the form of letters to the journal to which the original authors can respond immediately. However, in this case (and others) a flurry of hastily prepared papers appeared, claiming errors in our study, with our responses delayed months and longer. The delay permitted our paper to be commonly referred to as "discredited." Indeed, there is a strange reluctance to actually find out how climate really behaves. In 2003, when the draft of the U.S. National Climate Plan urged a high priority for improving our knowledge of climate sensitivity, the National Research Council instead urged support to look at the impacts of the warming--not whether it would actually happen.

Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding. And only the most senior scientists today can stand up against this alarmist gale, and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers.

Mr. Lindzen is Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

[Peikko 1,575]

Ah, so it's the blitzkrieg rules of engagement is it Gary? Well, that's me out then.

I will say this, healthy skepticism is a good thing, dogmatic refusal to accept the proponderance of evidence something else again. Have fun with your posting marathon

[HAL 9000 96]

There certainly ARE lots of 'articles' out there... about a few people.

I do find it funny that 'skeptics' bring up the part about there being common misconceptions regarding the actual science behind it all... since it is the scientists reminding many skeptics of the misconceptions in understanding and conclusion jumping in the very sources being cited as fact and support of their skepticism.

[GaryC 7]

There certainly ARE lots of 'articles' out there... about a few people.

I do find it funny that 'skeptics' bring up the part about there being common misconceptions regarding the actual science behind it all... since it is the scientists reminding many skeptics of the misconceptions in understanding and conclusion jumping in the very sources being cited as fact and support of their skepticism.

It isn't about a "few" people. It's about any scientist that goes against the "consensus". The dismissals from you and MC just show how effective the stonewall has been. Take the time to do a google search. It isn't that hard.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

real scientists have better tools to search actual journals... they dont use google.

[GaryC 7]

Ah, so it's the blitzkrieg rules of engagement is it Gary? Well, that's me out then.

I will say this, healthy skepticism is a good thing, dogmatic refusal to accept the proponderance of evidence something else again. Have fun with your posting marathon

Hehehe, Listen to yourself MC. There are tons of examples of what I am saying. Yet you still sit there and say there is a proponderence of evidence. Your just swallowing what is fed to you.

real scientists have better tools to search actual journals... they dont use google.

If they can get dissenting views published that is. Trouble is, they can't.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Your just swallowing what is fed to you.

Gary, I've never seen you talk dirty before!

[HAL 9000 96]

There certainly ARE lots of 'articles' out there... about a few people.

I do find it funny that 'skeptics' bring up the part about there being common misconceptions regarding the actual science behind it all... since it is the scientists reminding many skeptics of the misconceptions in understanding and conclusion jumping in the very sources being cited as fact and support of their skepticism.

It isn't about a "few" people. It's about any scientist that goes against the "consensus". The dismissals from you and MC just show how effective the stonewall has been. Take the time to do a google search. It isn't that hard.

OK.

I guess it shows how effective it is to talk science sometimes.

real scientists have better tools to search actual journals... they dont use google.

Well there IS Google Scholar.

If they can get dissenting views published that is. Trouble is, they can't.

Usually happens when the data isn't there.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Ah, so it's the blitzkrieg rules of engagement is it Gary? Well, that's me out then.

I will say this, healthy skepticism is a good thing, dogmatic refusal to accept the proponderance of evidence something else again. Have fun with your posting marathon

Hehehe, Listen to yourself MC. There are tons of examples of what I am saying. Yet you still sit there and say there is a proponderence of evidence. Your just swallowing what is fed to you.

real scientists have better tools to search actual journals... they dont use google.

If they can get dissenting views published that is. Trouble is, they can't.

Time will tell, won't it? If the scientists get it right, the engineers slap each other on the back, and a good time is had by all. If the scientists get it wrong, the engineers look at each other in disgust, until someone says, "Well, the scientists got it wrong again, just like we told 'em." High fives all around, and a good time is had by all, minus the scientists.

Edited July 16, 2009 by Mister_Bill

[HAL 9000 96]

Ah, so it's the blitzkrieg rules of engagement is it Gary? Well, that's me out then.

I will say this, healthy skepticism is a good thing, dogmatic refusal to accept the proponderance of evidence something else again. Have fun with your posting marathon

Hehehe, Listen to yourself MC. There are tons of examples of what I am saying. Yet you still sit there and say there is a proponderence of evidence. Your just swallowing what is fed to you.

real scientists have better tools to search actual journals... they dont use google.

If they can get dissenting views published that is. Trouble is, they can't.

Time will tell, won't it? If the scientists get it right, the engineers slap each other on the back, and a good time is had by all. If the scientists get it wrong, the engineers look at each other in disgust, until someone says, "Well, the scientists got it wrong again, just like we told 'em." High fives all around, and a good time is had by all, minus the scientists.

Mom would've been so proud of me had I actually followed through on that chemical engineering thought... or bioengineering program I flirted with...

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Nerds....God bless them.

[Peikko 1,575]

Gary, one question. Do you believe Barack Obama is a US citizen by birth? Just curious.