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.

 

A Heated Debate: Are Climate Scientists Being Forced to Toe the Line?

page: 1
37
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+15 more 
posted on Oct, 3 2014 @ 07:02 AM
link   

A Heated Debate: Are Climate Scientists Being Forced to Toe the Line?

By Axel Bojanowski

Editorial | Notebook

Silencing Scientists

By VERLYN KLINKENBORG

Published: September 21, 2013

Over the last few years, the government of Canada — led by Stephen Harper — has made it harder and harder for publicly financed scientists to communicate with the public and with other scientists.

After joining a controversial lobby group critical of climate change, meteorologist Lennart Bengtsson claims he was shunned by colleagues, leading him to quit. Some scientists complain pressure to conform to consensus opinion has become a serious hindrance in the field.

News that Lennart Bengtsson, the respected former director of Germany's Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, had joined the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), sent shockwaves through the climate research community. GWPF is most notable for its skepticism about climate change and its efforts to undermine the position of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The tremors his decision sent through the scientific community shocked Bengtsson.

The scientist said colleagues placed so much pressure on him after joining GWPF that he withdrew from the group out of fear for his own health. Bengtsson added that his treatment had been reminiscent of the persecution of suspected Communists in the United States during the era of McCarthyism in the 1950s.
...
Clouds Gathered Ahead of Storm

It is now emerging that the clouds of controversy gathered ahead of the current storm. In February, Bengtsson weathered a significant setback. The scientific journal Environmental Research Letters declined to publish a study he had authored predicting a milder greenhouse effect. Peer reviewers described the report's findings as "less than helpful" and added, "actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of 'errors' and worse from the climate-skeptic media side."

Respected German meteorologist Hans von Storch of the Institute for Coastal Research at the Helmholtz Center, described the justification as "scandalous" and accused the journal of politically motivated decision-making not based on scientific standards. In a statement on the IOP Science website, Publisher Nicola Gulley emphasizes that the study was declined on scientific grounds. She argues that Bengtsson's work failed to meet the journal's high standards.
...

www.spiegel.de...

The same is happening all over. meanwhile there are claims that "97%-99% of scientists agree with the AGW claim" the truth is quite the contrary and is based on false claims.

Another example of how scientists are being coerced, or even forced to toe the AGW party line includes the actions of the Canadian government since 2008.


Editorial | Notebook

Silencing Scientists

By VERLYN KLINKENBORG

Published: September 21, 2013

Over the last few years, the government of Canada — led by Stephen Harper — has made it harder and harder for publicly financed scientists to communicate with the public and with other scientists.

It began badly enough in 2008 when scientists working for Environment Canada, the federal agency, were told to refer all queries to departmental communications officers. Now the government is doing all it can to monitor and restrict the flow of scientific information, especially concerning research into climate change, fisheries and anything to do with the Alberta tar sands — source of the diluted bitumen that would flow through the controversial Keystone XL pipeline. Journalists find themselves unable to reach government scientists; the scientists themselves have organized public protests.

There was trouble of this kind here in the George W. Bush years, when scientists were asked to toe the party line on climate policy and endangered species. But nothing came close to what is being done in Canada.

Science is the gathering of hypotheses and the endless testing of them. It involves checking and double-checking, self-criticism and a willingness to overturn even fundamental assumptions if they prove to be wrong. But none of this can happen without open communication among scientists. This is more than an attack on academic freedom. It is an attempt to guarantee public ignorance.
...

www.nytimes.com...

In the U.S. we have.



The silencing of global warming critics


May 21, 2014|By Cory Franklin

President Barack Obama recently warned the country about climate change, referencing the recently released National Climate Assessment, mandated by Congress and published every four years as a guide to policymakers. In doing so, he called out skeptics: "Unfortunately, inside of Washington, we've still got some climate deniers who shout loud, but they're wasting everybody's time on a settled debate. … Climate change is a fact. ... Rising sea levels, drought, more wildfires, more severe storms — those are bad for the economy. … Climate change is not some far-off problem in the future. It's happening now."

Global warming and its dire consequences may very well come to pass. But with due respect to the president, his experts and everyone complaining about wasted time: The rigid tone, blind appeal to authority and constant use of the terms "denier" and "settled debate" do not reflect true scientific thought or serve the public well.

Science is about explaining nature. The scientist's role is not to tell the public what to believe. It is to clarify ideas, as efficiently as possible, so the public can understand the questions at hand.

The climate debate isn't settled; it has hardly begun. The Earth has warmed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit over the last century. Most of this rise has been in the last 50 years, coincident with higher atmospheric carbon dioxide levels produced by increased fossil fuel consumption. But future atmospheric warming depends on poorly understood feedback loops, and future warming estimates vary significantly. Climate scientists should explain to the public the strengths and limitations of their methods and data; any scientific journal editor would demand as much. Instead, too many scientists simply seek to silence critics.
...

articles.chicagotribune.com...

The same claims are even made by some members in this website, as well as others. If you disagree with the AGW claim, it doesn't matter if you post research after research that corroborates your statements, you will be branded "an oil shill". The same is said "of every scientist who states a disagreement with the AGW claims".



+5 more 
posted on Oct, 3 2014 @ 07:06 AM
link   
Instead of debating the points raised by skeptics, the AGW crowd always resort to simply denying every argument presented against their case. Or they resort to label you, and every scientist that is a skeptic as a "climate change denier" among other labels, despite the fact that not even the labels make sense. But to the AGW supporter it seems that contradictions make sense.

In the end the real truth is that AGW is the "science of fear" and not science based on facts. Indeed, the AGW supporters will proclaim that the GCMs that "supposedly predict the future" are right, when the observations so far disagree with a majority of the GCMs/computer models.

As for the "changing climate"? Newsflash, IT WILL CONTINUE TO CHANGE. The Earth, and in fact the entire solar system is always moving through space, encountering new regions of space that do indeed change the dynamics, and the climate of planets with an atmosphere like Earth. But, according to the AGW proponents, the Sun can't be a factor because they would claim that solar activity has remained stable since the 1950s when evidence says the contrary.

To the AGW crowd, the fact that the Earth has been warming since the 1600s, almost 300 years before the height of the industrial revolution, cannot be a factor.

To them water vapor cannot be a factor despite the fact that during warming cycles the water vapor content increases due to a positive feedback effect which in turn causes more warming. In fact, it doesn't even matter if water vapor accounts for 95%-98% of the greenhouse effect.

To the AGW crowd the only thing that matters is to force you through fear to accept their misguided and false beliefs.


edit on 3-10-2014 by ElectricUniverse because: add comment.



posted on Oct, 3 2014 @ 07:13 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Stick your head back in the sand you flat earther!

Sorry, I was just warming you up for the game.



posted on Oct, 3 2014 @ 07:19 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

good thread...




In the end the real truth is that AGW is the "science of fear" and not science based on facts. Indeed, the AGW supporters will proclaim that the GCMs that "supposedly predict the future" are right, when the observations so far disagree with a majority of the GCMs/computer models.


I think this goes not only for climate scientists...the science itself in general is corrupted. The process is corrupted. Not every scientist is in on it...but it's really out of their hands now. Scientific method and reasoning has taken a step back...to become a tool for control.

It's like religion IMO. Sure the idea is nice...but ultimately it is always corrupted by man.


Keep up the fight Electric...I like your posts.



posted on Oct, 3 2014 @ 07:21 AM
link   
a reply to: network dude

lol

You see, due to the normal responses from the AGW crowd sometimes sarcasm can be wrongfully interpreted as another reproach from the AGW proponents.



edit on 3-10-2014 by ElectricUniverse because: correct sentence.



posted on Oct, 3 2014 @ 07:34 AM
link   

The EPA Silences a Climate Skeptic

...Mr. Hansen, as everyone in this solar system knows, is the director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Starting in 2004, he launched a campaign against the Bush administration, claiming it was censoring his global-warming thoughts and fiddling with the science. It was all a bit of a hoot, given Mr. Hansen was already a world-famous devotee of the theory of man-made global warming, a reputation earned with some 1,400 speeches he'd given, many while working for Mr. Bush. But it gave Democrats a fun talking point, one the Obama team later picked up.

So much so that one of President Barack Obama's first acts was a memo to agencies demanding new transparency in government, and science. The nominee to head the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Lisa Jackson, joined in, exclaiming, "As administrator, I will ensure EPA's efforts to address the environmental crises of today are rooted in three fundamental values: science-based policies and program, adherence to the rule of law, and overwhelming transparency." In case anyone missed the point, Mr. Obama took another shot at his predecessors in April, vowing that "the days of science taking a backseat to ideology are over."


more at link

online.wsj.com...

So much for transparency huh?

Mod Note: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.
edit on 10/4/2014 by kosmicjack because: trimmed excessive quote



posted on Oct, 3 2014 @ 07:47 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse


"The administrator and the administration have decided to move forward on endangerment, and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision. . . . I can only see one impact of your comments given where we are in the process, and that would be a very negative impact on our office."


every time I see one these...I feel sickened by what we've become.



posted on Oct, 3 2014 @ 07:47 AM
link   
We mustn't forget these either:


Prof. Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute in Paris said the list of scientists endorsing the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report was a "sham," because it included the names of panel scientists who disagreed with its exaggerated climate predictions. Reiter, an expert in malaria, told the London Daily Mail that he only got his name removed after he threatened a lawsuit. "That is how they make it seem that all the top scientists are agreed," Prof. Reiter said. In a report in the Jan.-Feb. 2000 issue of [Emerging Infectious Diseases], Reiter showed that the claim that the increase in malaria was due to climate change was absurd.



Oregon State Climatologist George Taylor is under threat of losing his job for arguing that most climate change is the result of natural variations, not human-produced carbon dioxide. Despite threats from the Governor and a pending bill in the legislatures to have him removed, sponsored by Democratic State Sen. Brad Avakian, Taylor has held firm. "If the facts change, I'll change my mind. So far, I haven't," Taylor told a climate change conference at Oregon State University. Taylor has held the title of "state climatologist" since 1991, when the legislature created a state climate office at OSU.



Chris Landsea, one of the world's foremost experts on hurricanes, resigned from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in January 2005, in protest over their bias. He wrote an open letter shortly before the issuance of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report. Dr Kevin Trenberth, the lead author of a part of the IPCC report had participated in a press conference claiming the 2004 Atlantic hurricane season was caused by greenhouse gases. Wrote Landsea: "To my knowledge none of the participants in that press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin."


And one of my favorites:


Senior French physicist and pioneer of isotope studies Claude Allegre came out against global warming last September, after having been one of its most outspoken proponents for over 15 years. His case is featured today in Canada's National Post, in an ongoing series called "The Deniers." Fifteen years ago, Dr. Allegre, had been among the 1,500 scientists who signed a highly publicized letter stressing that global warming's "potential risks are very great." But last September, in an article in [l'Express] ("The Snows of Kilimanjaro"), Allegre said that the retreat of the Kilimanjaro glacier had nothing to do with human-produced carbon dioxide, and also pointed to growth in the Antarctic glacier. There is no basis for saying, as most do, that the "science is settled," he said. A member of the U.S. and French Academies of Science, Allegre is a pioneer in the field of isotope geodynamics, a method of dating past events like the formation of the atmosphere, by isotope signatures. He participated in the Apollo lunar program, where he helped determine the age of the Moon. Allegre is also a leading figure in the Socialist Party and served as Education Minister.


Source

These statements don't get publicity. They are ignored, and the only stories you hear about are the ones that claim "there's more hurricanes because of man-made global warming, "there's more floods and drought because of global warming..."

So how about inviting an expert on hurricanes or floods or droughts to these news broadcasts in support that statement?

They won't, and it's obvious why.

As shown above, the experts don't agree. There is not consensus, as if that was some magic scientific term, which it isn't.

There isn't even a sound hypothesis, there about 500 different ones and most of them are based off of each other, and most can't be proven or demonstrated by observation.

Sometimes I wonder if the folks who believe it so much, just need something to believe in, or something they feel guilty about, so that they can cling to an idea that let's them "try to make a difference", and makes them feel like they are paying back the Earth or humanity for their own wrong-doings in life.

Keep up the good work EU...



~Namaste

edit on 3-10-2014 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2014 @ 08:21 AM
link   
Two recent articles on the subject are very telling as well as dozens of others that say AGW is a tree hugging cult brought to us by people with big pockets and big profits to make off the scam .

California Drought – A Novel Statistical Analysis of Unrealistic Climate Models and of a Reanalysis That Should Not Be Equated with Reality wattsupwiththat.com... t-be-equated-with-reality/

And this "The Great Pause is the longest continuous period without any warming in the global instrumental temperature record since the satellites first watched in 1979. It has endured for a little over half the satellite temperature record. Yet the Pause coincides with a continuing, rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration." wattsupwiththat.com... If the AGW pawns were really wanting to be proactive they wouldn't waist their time running around the globe to march for the cause and instead plant some trees and look at the facts ,not the hype



posted on Oct, 3 2014 @ 08:28 AM
link   
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly
You are so correct.
The problem is, we have allowed politics and big business to fund science. And they fund that science to get the results they want, not necessarily the truth.

What a shame that true scientists have sold their soul for the almighty dollar.
And what a shame that government cannot fund science for truth, instead of bias.
Nice to know our tax dollars are being spent this way.



posted on Oct, 3 2014 @ 08:52 AM
link   
Remember "Climategate" from 2009?


It is the controversy over a set of over 1,000 private emails and many other documents that were stolen or leaked from the University of East Anglia's (UEA) Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in November 2009. All the emails involved CRU staff, principally the CRU head Phil Jones, but in correspondence with many of the world's leading climate scientists, including the main researcher behind the "hockey stick" graph, Michael Mann. CRU's speciality was reconstructing records of the Earth's past temperatures from thermometer data and "proxy" such as tree-ring measurements.

Climategate V2.0


On 22 November 2011, a fresh tranche of private emails exchanged between leading climate scientists throughout the last decade was released online. Their release came less than a week before the UN climate talks are due to resume in Durban, and appear to be genuine. Over 200,000 encrypted emails were posted on the internet, along with 5,000 publically-available emails and a "background and context" file highlighting some of the excerpts. Prof Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Centre at Penn State University, who is quoted in the batch of released emails described the release as "truly pathetic".

Truly pathetic...

Q&A: 'Climategate'

"The truth is out there..."



posted on Oct, 3 2014 @ 08:57 AM
link   
Personally, I think the drought in California is man-made, just not from our greenhouse gases.

People, we know how to make it rain or not. We've done the research, I've seen it.

It could be that this is a natural drought, but I don't think so. More likely weather manipulation.

We had weather tech in the 60's in Vietnam! what do we have now?

BTW Snowpiercer is a movie about a Global Warming Solution gone wrong, leading to a frozen planet, but really
it is about the resulting class warfare, the fight between the haves and have nots, ALL ON A TRAIN.



posted on Oct, 3 2014 @ 09:40 AM
link   
a reply to: ShadowChatter

Wow, when you put it all in one post, it almost looks like a conspiracy.

I would think even the AGW believers should have an issue with this. It sure isn't how science is supposed to work.



posted on Oct, 3 2014 @ 09:52 AM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Don't you know that WattsUpWithThat was debunked years ago?

Also, don't think about using The Climate Depot to show any science, either, as that was apparently debunked, too.

Don't you know all evidence against AGW is just a big conspiracy based on falsities?

/sarcasm



posted on Oct, 3 2014 @ 09:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: ShadowChatter



I would think even the AGW believers should have an issue with this. It sure isn't how science is supposed to work.


One would think, but...



posted on Oct, 3 2014 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Please say it isn't so! You mean to tell me, that the religion of science is becoming the science of religion? But, so many layman put so much stock in the whole "peer-reviewed" process! It is finite and incontrovertible!

What do we do now? I guess folks will have to go back to the old, time-consuming process of doing their own research and making up their own minds...Alas...It was good to have people tell us what to think and believe, while it lasted...






posted on Oct, 3 2014 @ 10:00 AM
link   
Yes or so I have been told by some members here .Funny thing about that is that those members usually have a couple million stars and flags and so they are followed around by what I can only assume are other Shills or members of the cult .Glad you put the sarc/tag on that .peace a reply to: SlapMonkey



posted on Oct, 3 2014 @ 10:38 AM
link   
Still crickets from the otherside?

Ill buy into the CC fearmongering when corporations decide to place a higher value on Mother Nature instead of profits.



new topics

top topics



 
37
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join