egafd.com

Essex Lad wrote:

> Aids was a scientific prediction as were mad cow disease, bird
> flu, swine flu and salmonella in eggs ? all wrong.

What is that supposed to mean? That Aids/mad-cow-disease/etc. is a figment of our imagination? Has anybody ever claimed we would all die of these things?

These sort of health matters and their impact tend to be very hard to predict, with an almighty error margin. As a scientist working in that field you have to make a decision when to cry wolf when a potential threat arises, and I don't envy them that decision. It's probably even harder than predicting volcanic eruptions.

> > The millennium bug was more a journalist hype than an expert
> > prediction of gloom - I don't recall anyone in the Computer
> > Science community paying the slightest bit of attention to it
> > at the time.
> Really? I suggest that you check your facts.

I am a computer scientist, and I was at the time. None of my colleagues gave a rat's ass about the issue.

> Governments the
> world over predicted virtual armageddon and several people ?
> computer experts ? became very rich using their skills to
> prevent a problem that was never there in the first place.

Of course they did - money corrupts; remember the MMR scare regarding autism? Done by a couple of doctors whose bread was buttered by companies making the individual vaccines.

The millennium bug was media fodder because it was easy to explain, and its relationship to the millennium turn made it kind of sexy. Computer Scientists ignored it, because it was not a CS problem to begin with - it was an IT problem, and one for very badly constructed IT at that. A much more likely time when something like the millennium bug could occur is in 2038, which is when computer clocks [counting seconds from the beginning of 1970] go beyond 2^31, which could make some programs believe that everything suddenly jumped a century back in time. Even that would not affect the running of most programs, just stuff such as software installation programs would be at risk, and they'd be under nerds' scrutiny well in advance.

> > Ultimately, you are saying - I don't want to be told by the
> > experts how to live my life. If there's a chance that it
> won't
> > ruin the future of humankind I'm willing to take that chance.
> So you are willing to pay thousands in "green" taxes and
> penalties for something that despite what some say is not a
> settled issue?

In principle, yes. I doubt though that on this issue there will be any serious progress until we experienced a catastrophic outcome somewhere, e.g. Manhattan being swallowed up by the rising Atlantic Ocean, or something of that ilk

In science there is no such thing as a "settled issue". Everything is only ever settled with some remaining error margin, and in some areas of science that error margin is difficult to get low. You have to draw a line in the sand between the things you regard as settled (as a working assumption) and the things that remain unsolved.

Without that line you can e.g. forget about medical science straight away.

But the line in the sand should be objective, i.e. don't make it dependent on things you would like to be true.

But with looming potential catastrophes you have to add caution: saying oops is no good when a nuclear power station goes bang, a trader gambles away shares worth the annual GDP of Canada, a fracking company has triggered the Yellowstone volcano to erupt, etc. All low probability events, but all so nasty in their worst case scenario that our instinctive judgement of low probability events (the: I won't be killed if I cross this road) is actually too generous on the risk-taking side.

We fought wars for free speech. Feel free to continue voicing your opinion, whatever it is. It is yours and in your mind correct.

Sam Slater wrote:

> 1. How many times have you heard of scientists ganging up on
> and threatening physical harm on another scientist?
>
> 2. Why are these private letters being published?
>
> 3. How did you come by them?
>
> I've no doubt some former friends of his would have been angry
> and disappointed which this professor's change of mind. Over
> 90% of people studying in this field believe that the largest
> contributor to global warming is CO2 emissions by man. If you
> went to 10 different doctors about a mole and 9 of them told
> you it was cancerous with just one telling you it's nothing to
> worry about, who'd you believe?
>
> The fact these letters have been published in the way they
> have, and the big deal being made that a single professor out
> of thousands around the world has 'switched' tells me all I
> need to know.
>
> As I've said before.......when it comes to most laymen, they'll
> believe in science when it suits them and they're seeing the
> benefits. As soon as science tells them something they don't
> like, they doubt it and it's a load of slapheads talking
> bollocks.
>
Hmmm....splash in The Times today...


Scientists in cover-up of ?damaging? climate view
Ben Webster Environment Editor
Published 10 minutes ago

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?.

Lennart Bengtsson, a research fellow at the University of Reading and one of the authors of the study, said he suspected that intolerance of dis- senting views on climate science was preventing his paper from being published. ?The problem we now have in the climate community is that some scientists are mixing up their scientific role with that of a climate activist,? he added.

Professor Bengtsson?s paper challenged the finding of the UN?s Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that the global average temperature would rise by up to 4.5C if greenhouse gases in the atmosphere were allowed to double.

It suggested that the climate might be much less sensitive to greenhouse gases than had been claimed by the IPCC in its report last September, and recommended that more work be carried out ?to reduce the underlying uncertainty?.

The five contributing scientists, from America and Sweden, submitted the paper to Environmental Research Letters, one of the most highly regarded journals, at the end of last year but were told in February that it had been rejected.

A scientist asked by the journal to assess the paper under the peer review process wrote that he strongly advised against publishing it because it was ?less than helpful?.

The unnamed scientist concluded: ?Actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of ?errors? and worse from the climate sceptics media side.?

Professor Bengtsson resigned from the advisory board of Lord Lawson of Blaby?s climate sceptic think-tank this week after being subjected to what he described as McCarthy-style pressure from fellow academics.

Lord Lawson, the former Conservative chancellor, said that the pressure exerted by other climate scientists had been appalling and the comparison with McCarthyism was ?fully warranted?.

The claims are a stark reminder of events at the University of East Anglia in 2009. Scientists there were accused of manipulating data and suppressing critics of global warming predictions in the run-up to the crucial Copenhagen climate change conference.

They were later cleared, though the IPCC was found to have misrepresented their research by failing to reflect uncertainties over raw temperature data.

Professor Bengtsson, the former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, said he accepted that emissions would increase the global average temperature but the key question was how quickly.

He added that it was ?utterly unacceptable? to advise against publishing a paper on the ground that the findings might be used by climate sceptics to advance their arguments. ?It is an indication of how science is gradually being influenced by political views. The reality hasn?t been keeping up with the [computer] models. Therefore, if people are proposing to do major changes to the world?s economic system we must have much more solid information.?

Scientists from around the world sent messages of support to Professor Bengtsson. David Gee, a former geology professor at Uppsala University in Sweden, wrote: ?The pressure on you from the climate community simply confirms the worst aspects of politicised science. I have been reprimanded myself for opposing the climate bandwagon, with its blind dedication to political ambitions.?

IOP Publishing, which publishes Environmental Research Letters, did not respond directly when asked about the reviewer?s comments. A spokesman said: ?Two independent reviewers . . . 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.?

Do you actually read these articles, Essex Lad?

It's very important to separate the wheat from the chaff in all articles to get to the facts, rather than being led down the road the writer wants to take you. In summary, it's nothing too outrageous.


I will quote important bits of text you seem to have overlooked or not thought important because to post this, as a skeptic of man-made global warming, this article doesn't really help your cause. More mine, actually....read on:


"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."

I've underlined the important bits of this opening sentence. Notice the wording: 'heaped doubt'. Why do you think they used this phrase if they were totally objective and impartial? Again, over 90% of experts in this field all agree. A minority do not. One paper doesn't 'heap doubt' on the thousands of papers and hundreds of models from climatologists all over the globe (from all different countries with different political agendas). Going back to my mole analogy, which you repeatedly ignore: If you have a mole that nine doctors say is cancerous and one doctor says isn't, would you take that one doctor's view and say it 'heaped doubt' against the nine other doctors who were in consensus with each other? This is The Times. A Murdoch paper. He's a global warming denier.

And then on to 'rate of global warming'. An admission here that the argument isn't over whether global warming is increasing but just the rate.


"In an echo of the infamous ?Climategate? scandal at the University of East Anglia,...."

Yes.......nice of them to bring that up isn't it? I wonder why? More on this later....


"Lennart Bengtsson, a research fellow at the University of Reading and one of the authors of the study, said he suspected that intolerance of dis- senting views on climate science was preventing his paper from being published. ?The problem we now have in the climate community is that some scientists are mixing up their scientific role with that of a climate activist,? he added."

Funny how he only 'suspects' but later on goes to say 'the problem with some in the climate community' like it's a statement of fact. This is personal opinion. Nothing else, and they complain of politics getting too involved. It's added to take you down a certain path, Essex Lad. Be mindful of this.


"Professor Bengtsson resigned from the advisory board of Lord Lawson of Blaby?s climate sceptic think-tank this week after being subjected to what he described as McCarthy-style pressure from fellow academics.

Lord Lawson, the former Conservative chancellor, said that the pressure exerted by other climate scientists had been appalling and the comparison with McCarthyism was ?fully warranted?."

Again......Professor Bengtsson further down the piece repeatedly complains of political influence of science and yet he was a member of a 'think tank' run by a former Conservative chancellor.


"The claims are a stark reminder of events at the University of East Anglia in 2009. Scientists there were accused of manipulating data and suppressing critics of global warming predictions in the run-up to the crucial Copenhagen climate change conference."

Back on to climategate for the second time.....just to feed your mistrust of the climate community and their findings. That's the second time they've mentioned it to drive it home.


"They were later cleared, though the IPCC was found to have misrepresented their research by failing to reflect uncertainties over raw temperature data."

Ah....so finally, after planting the seeds in your head, they admit that no manipulation happened and it was a concern about how the graphs were laid out (from memory). No falsification.....no manipulation......no lies. It was just laid out in an unclear -to the layman- manner. Doesn't matter now. The writer of the piece has planted the seeds and the readers who want to believe it have let those seeds grow. They'll skim over the 'they were cleared' bit. Writers know what they're doing, Essex Lad. It's their job. Be mindful of this.


"Scientists from around the world sent messages of support to Professor Bengtsson. David Gee, a former geology professor at Uppsala University in Sweden, wrote: ?The pressure on you from the climate community simply confirms the worst aspects of politicised science. I have been reprimanded myself for opposing the climate bandwagon, with its blind dedication to political ambitions.?"

How many scientists from around the world? Given we already know the writer's agenda by the language he's used (heaped on) and the digging up climategate twice when they were cleared, you can bet your life he'd have added more than one 'David Gee'. A 'David Gee' who uses the term 'climate bandwagon'.......slightly showing he's not the most objective of people.


"IOP Publishing, which publishes Environmental Research Letters, did not respond directly when asked about the reviewer?s comments. A spokesman said: ?Two independent reviewers . . . 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."

Seems pretty sensible to me. What right-minded scientific journal accepts and publishes papers full of errors?

And those errors would have been pointed out. Why didn't the writer of the piece explain what these errors were? Surely if IOP Publishing refused to divulge to a journalist what the errors were, the journalist would be up in arms about cover ups and censorship? It would actually become the main point of this piece. Yet, no mention. Weird that, isn't it, given the errors were the reason why the paper wasn't accepted. This all comes down to those errors. Why did the writer not want to discuss them given they are central to everything he's writing about?

Could it be those errors would make the whole article a bit pointless? That those errors showed IOP Publishing to completely right to refuse the papers Professor Bengtsson submitted? Could it be those errors didn't help in taking the reader down the path the writer wanted to take you: ie - be skeptical of man made climate change?

You never thought to question any of this, yourself, Essex Lad? The article puts too much weight on too few people and their opinions and skims over the most important subject of all: those errors.

It's written by a GW skeptic, talking about the complaints of GW skeptics in a paper owned and run by a GW skeptic and meant to be read by GW skeptics to reinforce their GW skepticism. It's unbalanced, disingenuous and of not journalistic merit at all.

Oh.....and you still haven't addressed my points in my other post.

One side carbon trading.

One side oil.

Now which side makes the most money and has the most political influence globally? Hmmm.

Remember that next time you complain about Muslims burning flags on Remembrance Day.

And from a scientist:

This bullying of climate-science sceptics must end

When did demonising your opponents become so acceptable?


Matt Ridley
Published at 12:01AM, May 16 2014

Lennart Bengtsson is about as distinguished as climate scientists get. His decision two weeks ago to join the academic advisory board (on which I also sit, unremunerated) of Nigel Lawson?s Global Warming Policy Foundation was greeted with fury by many fellow climate scientists. Now in a McCarthyite move ? his analogy ? they have bullied him into resigning by refusing to collaborate with him unless he leaves.

The GWPF aims to ensure that the climate-change debate is more balanced. Its members are not ?deniers?, yet as Lord Lawson said in a recent speech: ?I have never in my life experienced the extremes of personal hostility, vituperation and vilification that I, along with other dissenters, of course, have received for my views on global warming and global-warming policies.?

Professor Bengtsson?s resignation shows that the alleged ?consensus? on dangerous global warming involves suppressing dissent by academic bullying. He emphasises that there is no consensus about how fast and how far greenhouse warming will go, let alone what can be done in response.

Evidence of such bullying emerged in the ?Climategate? scandal of 2009, where some climate scientists? emails revealed them to be ready to threaten and blackball colleagues, reporters and editors who expressed sceptical views. I talk frequently to scientists who are unconvinced that climate change is even close to being the world?s most pressing environmental problem, but who will not put their heads above the parapet for fear of what it would do to their careers.

What is going on in academia when demonising and silencing your opponents has become so acceptable? It?s not just climate change. The nature-nurture debate is also policed by zealots, although less so than in the 1970s when any mention of genes and behaviour led to accusations of fascism.

Or consider Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a woman who suffered genital mutilation, attempted forced marriage, attempted assassination and double exile for her views. The offer of an honorary degree from Brandeis University on the anniversary of the Boston marathon bombings (committed by Islamists) was withdrawn after pressure from its women?s studies department.

Professor Bengtsson?s persecution shows precisely why independent think-tanks such as the Global Warming Policy Foundation are essential. Truly, the old joke is becoming ever more true: what?s the opposite of diversity? University.

That isn't freedom of speech, that is being a cunt and unpatriotic.

Why do you keep posting these?

I dissected that article you posted last night like a skilled surgeon (while tired and having a bit of a headache I might add - terrible it was).

This is just more of the same.

Lennart Bengtsson had his papers rejected by independent reviewers due to 'errors'. Until we have those errors explained, we do not know whether Lennart Bengtsson has been treated unfairly.

You've posted to journalistic articles on the matter and neither goes into detail about the errors.

Lennart Bengtsson may not be being demonised. He may be wrong. It's like saying you're demonising crap footballers by professional football clubs refusing to give them contracts.

Again.....the errors aren't mentioned for a reason - because they don't fit in with the writer's agenda. He wants you to distrust over 90% of climatologists because he distrusts 90% of climatologists. The errors would show Lennart Bengtsson to be wrong, not the consensus so they're left out.

Read articles properly. Don't just skim over them and pick out the bits you want to hear.

Freedom of speech includes saying unpatriotic and cuntish things.