Climategate II? Scientific community accused of muzzling dissent on global warming

page: 1
23
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+2 more 
posted on May, 16 2014 @ 08:48 PM
link   

A paper by Lennart Bengtsson, a respected research fellow and climatologist at Britain's University of Reading, was rejected last February by a leading academic journal after a reviewer found it "harmful" to the climate change agenda. The incident is prompting new charges that the scientific community is muzzling dissent when it comes to global warming.

"[Bengtsson] has been a very prolific publisher and was considered one of the top scientists in the mainstream climate community," said Marc Morano, of the website ClimateDepot.com, which is devoted to questioning global warming.

Bengtsson had grown increasingly skeptical of the scientific consensus, often cited by President Obama, that urgent action is needed to curb carbon emissions before climate change exacts an irreversible toll on the planet with extreme drought, storms and rising seas levels.


Why is it that any science that might be 'harmful' to the climate change agenda must be suppressed? Isn't the whole point of science the pursuit of the truth? Why must we have people deciding what scientific studies are okay and which aren't?

THIS is exactly why so many people are suspicious of the agenda of climate change. If something can stand on its own merits then fine. As soon as we silence dissent on any topic we can no longer be true scientists. So many times throughout history we have come to a conclusion only to find new evidence that makes us rethink that position.

I am concerned anytime people quit questioning...whether it is religious, political or scientific.

Source
ed it on 2014/5/16 by Metallicus because: Sp




posted on May, 16 2014 @ 08:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

There is more to this story being trumpeted by murdoch's financed science and media empire.


"... was peer-reviewed by two independent reviewers, who reported that the paper contained errors and did not provide a significant advancement in the field, and therefore failed to meet the journal's required acceptance criteria. As a consequence, the independent reviewers recommended that the paper should not be published in the journal which led to the final editorial decision to reject the paper."

There is more at this link: Murdoch-owned media....

edit on 16-5-2014 by LDragonFire because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 08:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

In the main stream the clamor is about the change in the climate as evidenced by the increase of CO2 and the melting ice. This could affect us in the future.

Meanwhile, off the main stream on places like ATS we have a study made about pollution right here and now in our cities. You won't see that clamored about in the main stream though.

The thread…

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 09:08 PM
link   
a reply to: LDragonFire

You are slamming my post as being biased because of a hit piece in The Guardian which is a known biased source in its own right. You are deflecting instead of dealing with the information and topic at hand. In fact you are also against deflection as you railed against it in another thread here on ATS.



oh a deflection post....already.
- See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...


Thank you for showing the rest of us how deflection works.




posted on May, 16 2014 @ 09:09 PM
link   
Sounds like this fella Lennart Bengtsson won't take the Grant Bribe money so fast.

Good for him.

We need some honesty in the CO2 issues.

I bet the bankers are all in a fluff !!




posted on May, 16 2014 @ 09:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

Do you need more quotes from the link I provided?

His paper was rejected because it was not a well written peace of science and didn't pass the peer review not for the reasons stated.
edit on 16-5-2014 by LDragonFire because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 09:12 PM
link   
Questioning seems a moot point now...

President Obama’s big carbon crackdown readies for launch

We'll know next month. That's when this big roll out of the new regs is supposed to come, according to the link. Limiting power plant emissions is a big part of it, and the article mentions coal will be hit hardest by these.

Repeated reference is made to the recent media push, too.



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 09:19 PM
link   
If it wasn't all going to be so tragic for so many all of these political arguments would be hilarious.

We are going to have a decade of violent climate change.... Nothing can be done about it. We aren't the cause, there is no solution.

IMO
edit on 16-5-2014 by ausername because: (no reason given)


+7 more 
posted on May, 16 2014 @ 09:28 PM
link   
If its warmer "Its climate change"
If its cooler "Its climate change"
If the ice melts a little "Its climate change"
If the ice doubles in size "Its climate change"
If it rains a lot "Its climate change"
If it rains a little "Its climate change"

Hmm!

Its all a big fat scam!



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 09:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: VoidHawk
If its warmer "Its climate change"
If its cooler "Its climate change"
If the ice melts a little "Its climate change"
If the ice doubles in size "Its climate change"
If it rains a lot "Its climate change"
If it rains a little "Its climate change"

Hmm!

Its all a big fat scam!


No it's not climate change.

It's "Climate Re-Distribution".

All caused by fiat CO2 "short-changing" and counterfeiting.





posted on May, 16 2014 @ 09:34 PM
link   
We have enough geothermal energy in this country to run it many times over. The cost associated with geothermal is on par or as many studies have shown less than that of coal.

There are zero co2 emissions with geothermal yet the coal industry has people thinking they can build clean coal plants. There are 2 clean coal plants up and running and they are expensive just as expensive as nuclear and it is not even certain if the co2 pumped into the ground will stay there.

We could still have cheap electric maybe even cheaper electric and we could do it without polluting with co2 but at some point people will need to demand the change because you bet your arse the coal companies are not going to willingly change.



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 09:34 PM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

I agree. Its all about Agenda 21. Thats the source of the cover up and silence.

More and more the truth comes out though.

I just hope its before the damned carbon tax is imposed. That will be the final blow to the middle class and any chance of an average person finding financial freedom from the wage /slave system.

I say that even if they win an all out victory, the truth WILL come out eventually. Then we hunt then to their eventual extinction. Even if they reduce our numbers. After 50 years of war and free reproduction we could have enough numbers to tear this world down with our bare hands if we start with even just a few thousand.

Humans.....

edit on 5 16 2014 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 09:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

I often see claims of 95% of scientific papers supporting human-climate-doom.

Now I know why.

As long as any scientist comes up with data to disprove the agenda-driven claims, there will be pressure to silence them.



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 09:43 PM
link   
a reply to: tadaman

I posted this question in another thread, can you give any examples of agenda 21 being used in the USA?



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 09:47 PM
link   
None of this is going to matter to the farmer that can't produce a crop, or to the growing numbers of people who's communities are devastated by violent storms, floods, blizzards etc. The rancher that can only watch hopelessly as his livestock die... The governments as they fail to find any way to sustain populations in region after region....

Nothing will stop the impact on humanity and global ecosystems.

It has happened before humanity, it is happening again....

IMO



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 09:59 PM
link   
How are you guys so easily fooled by oil industry funded think tanks?



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 10:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

I find it perplexing. They star and flag anything remotely close to there ideological beliefs not bothering to look into the facts. Really people need to go outside more!



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 10:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
How are you guys so easily fooled by oil industry funded think tanks?


People on both sides of the political argument are all flawed in their thinking. Doesn't matter what tank they're in.

We need to begin with accepting that climate change is real, and abandon searching for the cause, or a way to mitigate it, and move toward thinking and planning on ways to survive it.

But, as destiny will have it, they will argue, point fingers and lay blame until the bitter end...

IMO
edit on 16-5-2014 by ausername because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 10:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
How are you guys so easily fooled by oil industry funded think tanks?


I would ask the same of you.

Just because something coincides with your own political agenda, do you lose the ability then, to think critically?



posted on May, 16 2014 @ 10:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Metallicus

A paper by Lennart Bengtsson, a respected research fellow and climatologist at Britain's University of Reading, was rejected last February by a leading academic journal after a reviewer found it "harmful" to the climate change agenda. The incident is prompting new charges that the scientific community is muzzling dissent when it comes to global warming.

"[Bengtsson] has been a very prolific publisher and was considered one of the top scientists in the mainstream climate community," said Marc Morano, of the website ClimateDepot.com, which is devoted to questioning global warming.

Bengtsson had grown increasingly skeptical of the scientific consensus, often cited by President Obama, that urgent action is needed to curb carbon emissions before climate change exacts an irreversible toll on the planet with extreme drought, storms and rising seas levels.


I am far far far from being an expert but I love to hear the opinion of Suspicious0bserver on youtube about climate change. Ben the man.

Why is it that any science that might be 'harmful' to the climate change agenda must be suppressed? Isn't the whole point of science the pursuit of the truth? Why must we have people deciding what scientific studies are okay and which aren't?

THIS is exactly why so many people are suspicious of the agenda of climate change. If something can stand on its own merits then fine. As soon as we silence dissent on any topic we can no longer be true scientists. So many times throughout history we have come to a conclusion only to find new evidence that makes us rethink that position.

I am concerned anytime people quit questioning...whether it is religious, political or scientific.

Source





new topics
top topics
 
23
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join