It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 4
23
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 17 2014 @ 12:27 AM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Does the quoted rejection comments on the paper reflect what the scientist is claiming or don't they?

Let's see if you can give an actual answer to a question instead of deflecting with insults.
edit on 5/17/2014 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 17 2014 @ 12:29 AM
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.


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


Many who disagree (on many topics these days) are being silenced and/or intimidated/controlled so the agendas at hand can be rammed down our throats. They aren't interested in truth or even what honestly works....they are only interested in THEIR agenda....when this kind of muzzling, intimidation and/or silencing happens or ridiculed and is basically 'not tolerated' or even given a look at is what has me mistrusting every issue that this happens to....



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 12:31 AM
link   
Science is a mere parody of what science is supposedly about these days....as is other organised groups who are charged with the public good or human advancement.....
How has hypocrisy become the norm and honesty become the the pariah on this society?
Seems the agendas of the big guys get pushed upon us right or wrongly....



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 12:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: beezzer

Does the quoted rejection comments on the paper reflect what the scientist is claiming or don't they?

Let's see if you can give an actual answer to a question instead of deflecting with insults.


Because I question conventional thought, I am wrong?

Since when did questioning conventional thought become a bad thing?

I didn't get the memo.



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 12:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: stirling
Science is a mere parody of what science is supposedly about these days....as is other organised groups who are charged with the public good or human advancement.....
How has hypocrisy become the norm and honesty become the the pariah on this society?
Seems the agendas of the big guys get pushed upon us right or wrongly....


Love you man.

Science now isn't science as it was or should be. From my view, it's turned into more of a "Mathematics" than an actual science. If it can't be worked out with numbers (which can be easily cooked as we've all seen), then it's not considered 'science' at all since it can't be worked out with a mathematical formula...

What happened to the 'real' science?
edit on 17-5-2014 by BlackboxInquiry because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 12:40 AM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Did you reply to the wrong post?



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 12:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: beezzer

Did you reply to the wrong post?


Nope.

You go along and rely on convention.

I will continue to question.



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 01:18 AM
link   
Climate change IS REAL.

You people denying it are idiots!

All you have to do is look at the evidence obtained from
deep samples of permafrost and YOU CAN CLEARLY SEE
that CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL.

The evidence shows the the Earth's climate REGULARLY
undergoes DRAMATIC changes from intense global warming
where the polar ice caps melt and the entire earth is turned
into a lush, hot, humid garden, to chillingly cold deep freezes
where entire continents are covered in ice and snow.

IT HAPPENS FOLKS....QUIT DENYING IT!



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 01:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: beezzer

Did you reply to the wrong post?


Nope.

You go along and rely on convention.

I will continue to question.


Beezer you will love this one here; climate deniers essentially compared to conspiracy theorists who deny people landed on the moon. Even psychologists are proving man made climate change is true! Ahhh I really just get a kick out the rhetoric blasting from all directions.


Contrarians bully journal into retracting a climate psychology paper
After threats of frivolous libel and defamation lawsuits, a journal will retract an academically sound paper
www.theguardian.com...


Given that fewer than 3 percent of peer-reviewed climate science papers conclude that the human influence on global warming is minimal, climate contrarians have obviously been unable to make a convincing scientific case. Thus in order to advance their agenda of delaying climate solutions and maintaining the status quo in the face of a 97 percent expert consensus suggesting that this is a high-risk path, contrarians have engaged in a variety of unconventional tactics.

. . .

NASA Faked the Moon Landing

The story begins with the publication of a paper titled NASA Faked the Moon Landing—Therefore, (Climate) Science Is a Hoax: An Anatomy of the Motivated Rejection of Science. The paper was authored by Lewandwosky, Oberauer, and Gignac, and published in the journal Psychological Science in 2012. Using survey data from visitors to climate blogs, the paper found that conspiracy theorists are more likely to be skeptical of scientists' conclusions about vaccinations, genetically modified foods, and climate change.

This result was replicated in a follow-up study using a representative U.S. sample that obtained the same result linking conspiratorial thinking to climate denial.


Hahahaha gotta love a psychologist debunking an materials engineer's critique of a specific climate model assumption (not in this article but in another of his works).

Because everyone know psychologists are climate science experts . . . ahahahahahaha I mean surely they all aced thermodynamics and have a solid foundation of differential equations and computer modeling . . . AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Everyone has to jump in on this one, FOR SCIENCE!

I would absolutely LOVE to see a guy like this even solve for a simple Taylor series . . . BWAHAHAHA!

Ahh sorry, this stuff is just too good!

-FBB



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 02:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: beezzer

Did you reply to the wrong post?


Nope.

You go along and rely on convention.

I will continue to question.

Is it really questioning when you've already made up your mind? Would you say you're open to evidence? If somebody provided you with 5,000 papers published in peer reviewed journals, would you reconsider your opinions? My point is it's good to question things but it's not really questioning if you refuse to accept any answers that don't agree with your preconceived notions.. is it?



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 02:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
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.


Coal prices must have really dropped? Four years ago I did a series of RFQ's for 295 megawatts of distributed ethanol powered turbine generators (including feed processing/refining systems) at a price of about $265 million, turnkey for export. The nearest geothermal quote that I saw was just over $510 million, or just under double the cost. They did get coal quotes as well, even though coal was not spec'd as usable alternative, however the lowest coal quote came in at about $225 million which makes geothermal more than double cost.

Have things changed that much in the energy sector?

Cheers - Dave



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 05:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Metallicus

People who believe in climate have been bamboozoolled. It's a fact that c02 is at one of the lowest points in earths history. Co2 was 3 times more during the ice age.



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 06:48 AM
link   
Peer review in what some might call scientific papers as of late have led some to believe that it's a good old boy's club .Yea they may throw in the occasional high school student or university student who has no knowledge of what they are looking at . The MM hockey stick and him hiding the decline and not sharing his data and codes because someone might find fault with it is not science ...

University of Queensland threatens lawsuit over use of Cook’s ’97% consensus’ data for a scientific rebuttal , is another joke .wattsupwiththat.com... Ironically, Cook’s “97% consensus paper” was published one year ago today, under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license. Could it be because of what he found out about the consensus ? wattsupwiththat.com...

Full Moon on Lewandowsky Posted on April 26, 2014 by Anthony Watts Climate Psychologist with the Right Stuff

Stephan Lewandosky et al (including John Cook and Mike Marriott) published a paper called Recursive Fury, now retracted, psychoanalyzing climate skeptics’ opinions and categorizing them in psycho-babble terminology, such as:

(PV) Persecution Victimization (NI) Nefarious Intention (NS) Nihilistic Skepticism …among others.wattsupwiththat.com... "Okay then, prepare to put on your climate psychologist helmet, three sizes too small, and join in the moon shot.

First we will psychoanalyze global warming alarmists. To do this, we shall take self-selected surveys from anonymous internet avatars with names like MonkeyJunk andTrollMaster–you know, quality data. These surveys will be given to our friends, with a wink and a nod, and given to our enemies under anonymous subterfuge. While the survey is in progress, let’s also prod and taunt our subjects, just for ethical, unbiased scientific chuckles. Specifically where we get the data, what we delete and how we massage it will be locked in a safe. Anyone asking for that metadata will get the patented warming monger’s reply:

“Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”

Next, we apply a thin veneer of statistics and biased interpretation to our survey of loaded questions and get the results we intended all along: scientific proof these alarmists are barking mad nutters. "
edit on 17-5-2014 by the2ofusr1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 09:04 AM
link   
a reply to: rival

Weather is REAL!

Man-made-climate-change is still a subject of debate.



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 09:07 AM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian

It could be a million papers, but if one million papers based their assertion on a single paper with data points that were biased, then numbers are pointless.



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 09:16 AM
link   
a reply to: FriedBabelBroccoli

I'm not a climate denier.

I recognize that there is a climate. I'm just not a blind follower, is all.



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 10:12 AM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

But if you're on the opposite side of the debate from you, you're just a nazi politically driven sheep, right? Couldn't have anything to do with science, right?



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 10:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: beezzer

But if you're on the opposite side of the debate from you, you're just a nazi politically driven sheep, right? Couldn't have anything to do with science, right?


If you want to place words in my mouth, then go right ahead. (I'll PM you my password)

The people who blindly follow and don't question deserve what ever they get.



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 10:25 AM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Those words mysteriously appeared in your own posts huh? Gosh I'm talented...



posted on May, 17 2014 @ 10:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: LDragonFire
You think over 95% of the worlds scientist are on the governments dole?


That's a myth.

Forbes - Global Alarmists Caught Doctoring 97% Consensus Claims

Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media have been caught doctoring the results of a widely cited paper asserting there is a 97-percent scientific consensus regarding human-caused global warming. After taking a closer look at the paper, investigative journalists report the authors’ claims of a 97-pecent consensus relied on the authors misclassifying the papers of some of the world’s most prominent global warming skeptics. At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism.


Long article at that site.




top topics



 
23
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join