Climate Scientists’ Road to Hell

[IanC]

J Curry has an article up on the impropriety of the Chief Editor of the journal Science, Marcia McNutt, writing in the journal that "The time for debate has ended."

Curry- My concern re introducing bias in Science is several orders of magnitude greater. Science, along with Nature, has far and away the highest impact factor of any scientific journals on the planet – Science matters. Like Nature, Sciencesends out for review only a small fraction of the submitted papers. Apart from the role the Chief Editor may have in selecting which papers go out for review or eventually get published, this essay sends a message to the other editors and reviewers that papers challenging the consensus are not to be published inScience. Not to mention giving favored status to papers by activist authors that sound the ‘alarm’ – pal review and all that. After all, ‘the time for debate has ended.’

What really amused me was Curry juxtaposing McNutt's use of Dante's Infernoes with V Jones article from Xmas 2012. Climate Scientists Road to Hell Digging in the Clay

it is a great compilation of crimes against climate science by many of the climate scientists that are supposed to be protecting the integrity of science. (heh heh, any guesses on how often M Mann gets mentioned?). Lots of links to some of the issues that are brought up here but perhaps newcomers dont actually know much about.

 

[Old Rocks]

Curry got spanked by many of her peers for her stand that the scientists should play good little virgins and take no part in the rough and tumble of policy debates. Well, scientists also have children and grandchildren, and care about their future. Curry has lost the debate, and the respect of her colleagues for that reason.

 

[flacaltenn]

Curry got spanked by many of her peers for her stand that the scientists should play good little virgins and take no part in the rough and tumble of policy debates. Well, scientists also have children and grandchildren, and care about their future. Curry has lost the debate, and the respect of her colleagues for that reason.

Are you ADMITTING that their personal policies SHOULD get in the way of objective work and scientific integrity?

She cant' lose respect by continuing to point out how publications are cock-blocked by activist editors and publishers. Because once "her colleagues" go that far -- they have lost all scientific credibility in their statements and work. Just the way it is kiddo...

 

[Old Rocks]

Not at all, and it does not. You see a big problem, and you say this is how you solve it. Now that is two statements, not one. Perhaps your solution is not the best one available. That in no way invalidates the evidence for the existance of the problem. That you deniers cannot seperate the two is what is making you people irrelevant.

 

[flacaltenn]

Not at all, and it does not. You see a big problem, and you say this is how you solve it. Now that is two statements, not one. Perhaps your solution is not the best one available. That in no way invalidates the evidence for the existance of the problem. That you deniers cannot seperate the two is what is making you people irrelevant.

Didn't quite understand that.. Try again. Sounds to me like you were endorsing gate-keeping, personal bias, and lack of objective scientific principles with that reply a couple posts up...

I don't OFFER a solution. Because the problems I see are not Biblical in proportion -- like you apparently do..
Wanna address pollution? I'm on board. Wanna address "alternatives". I can suggest "solutions". But there is no solutions to a problem that varies from "ho hum" to "holy shit" in the same "scientific proclamation"..

 

[jc456]

Not at all, and it does not. You see a big problem, and you say this is how you solve it. Now that is two statements, not one. Perhaps your solution is not the best one available. That in no way invalidates the evidence for the existance of the problem. That you deniers cannot seperate the two is what is making you people irrelevant.

What does this mean?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Curry got spanked by many of her peers for her stand that the scientists should play good little virgins and take no part in the rough and tumble of policy debates. Well, scientists also have children and grandchildren, and care about their future. Curry has lost the debate, and the respect of her colleagues for that reason.

Wrong! As usual.. Curry did not get "spanked" by anyone, she rebuked their unscientific and criminal behavior. For that thousands of real scientists applaud her and support her. Your the minority in the room just as the Climate fear mongers are. They only lie and purport that they are some how superior. And to your dismay more and more are speaking up and calling you liars out.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Not at all, and it does not. You see a big problem, and you say this is how you solve it. Now that is two statements, not one. Perhaps your solution is not the best one available. That in no way invalidates the evidence for the existance of the problem. That you deniers cannot seperate the two is what is making you people irrelevant.

What does this mean?

Looks to me like he approves of gate keeping and unethical science practices to promote his political agenda..

 

[Billy_Bob]

J Curry has an article up on the impropriety of the Chief Editor of the journal Science, Marcia McNutt, writing in the journal that "The time for debate has ended."

Curry- My concern re introducing bias in Science is several orders of magnitude greater. Science, along with Nature, has far and away the highest impact factor of any scientific journals on the planet – Science matters. Like Nature, Sciencesends out for review only a small fraction of the submitted papers. Apart from the role the Chief Editor may have in selecting which papers go out for review or eventually get published, this essay sends a message to the other editors and reviewers that papers challenging the consensus are not to be published inScience. Not to mention giving favored status to papers by activist authors that sound the ‘alarm’ – pal review and all that. After all, ‘the time for debate has ended.’

What really amused me was Curry juxtaposing McNutt's use of Dante's Infernoes with V Jones article from Xmas 2012. Climate Scientists Road to Hell Digging in the Clay

it is a great compilation of crimes against climate science by many of the climate scientists that are supposed to be protecting the integrity of science. (heh heh, any guesses on how often M Mann gets mentioned?). Lots of links to some of the issues that are brought up here but perhaps newcomers dont actually know much about.

Excellent post and article! Judith is really raising the bar and turning on the light exposing unethical science practices and gate keeping. The Journal of Science has been at the forefront of gate keeping and unethical scientific practices for many years. The problem goes way back into the late 1980's under the Jones, Mann, Hansen era of control and propagandizing.

 

[IanC]

J Curry has an article up on the impropriety of the Chief Editor of the journal Science, Marcia McNutt, writing in the journal that "The time for debate has ended."

Curry- My concern re introducing bias in Science is several orders of magnitude greater. Science, along with Nature, has far and away the highest impact factor of any scientific journals on the planet – Science matters. Like Nature, Sciencesends out for review only a small fraction of the submitted papers. Apart from the role the Chief Editor may have in selecting which papers go out for review or eventually get published, this essay sends a message to the other editors and reviewers that papers challenging the consensus are not to be published inScience. Not to mention giving favored status to papers by activist authors that sound the ‘alarm’ – pal review and all that. After all, ‘the time for debate has ended.’

What really amused me was Curry juxtaposing McNutt's use of Dante's Infernoes with V Jones article from Xmas 2012. Climate Scientists Road to Hell Digging in the Clay

it is a great compilation of crimes against climate science by many of the climate scientists that are supposed to be protecting the integrity of science. (heh heh, any guesses on how often M Mann gets mentioned?). Lots of links to some of the issues that are brought up here but perhaps newcomers dont actually know much about.

Excellent post and article! Judith is really raising the bar and turning on the light exposing unethical science practices and gate keeping. The Journal of Science has been at the forefront of gate keeping and unethical scientific practices for many years. The problem goes way back into the late 1980's under the Jones, Mann, Hansen era of control and propagandizing.

yes, you have a good point there. imagine if Nature (the other big science journal) had simply forced Mann to produce the data, as per the journal's rules of publication. the trajectory of climate science would have been different. MBH 98&99 would have been cleaned up in less than half the time. the time and effort wasted in defending bad science could have been used for something more constructive. and most importantly, positions wouldnt have hardened into the us-vs-them stratification we have now.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Curry got spanked by many of her peers for her stand that the scientists should play good little virgins and take no part in the rough and tumble of policy debates. Well, scientists also have children and grandchildren, and care about their future. Curry has lost the debate, and the respect of her colleagues for that reason.

wow! The truth finally comes out from you, what we have been saying all along.... Junk science

 

[IanC]

let's try the second circle of climate science hell-

Second Circle: Overselling-

Who deserves to spend eternity here?The IPCC most definitely, and in particular its political aides responsible for the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) which rides roughshod over uncertainties; a vast swathe of alarmist climate scientists; Richard Muller forpromoting BEST in advance of peer-review; University press departments who will happily spin a story on any finding way beyond its original significance; Tim Flannery for PR and wild statements; the late Stephen Schneider for his encouragement of climate science to oversell the science “So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.”; Al Gore for An Inconvenient Truth; Bill McKibben for connecting the dots. I could go on.

hahahahaha. this is a huge point. without exaggeration no one would pay any attention to global warming, errrh climate change, or what ever its being called today.

 

[Crick]

Wrong! As usual.. Curry did not get "spanked" by anyone, she rebuked their unscientific and criminal behavior. For that thousands of real scientists applaud her and support her.

Where?

 

[Crick]

A review of McNutt's article The beyond-two-degree inferno will clearly show that McNutt was not talking about any scientific debate, but the debate over policy. Her comment was addressed to our political leaders, telling them to get off their asses and act.

So, Curry got it wrong every way she could.

 

[IanC]

So crick thinks political activism on the part of the chief editor of one of the two most influential journals in science is a good thing. No surprise there.

Perhaps it is better that McNutt's bias is out in the open. It's not like it was a big secret amongst climate scientists which type of papers got consideration anyways.

 

[Billy_Bob]

So crick thinks political activism on the part of the chief editor of one of the two most influential journals in science is a good thing. No surprise there.

Perhaps it is better that McNutt's bias is out in the open. It's not like it was a big secret amongst climate scientists which type of papers got consideration anyways.

I for one would like to see publication sites (multiple) on the internet which allow every one access to the data, methods, and code used. Science is about replication and refining the method to remove biases and preconceived notions. I would even like to see the reviewers concerns and statements (maybe this would stop a lot of the activism by selection). Just a thought..

 

[Crick]

So crick thinks political activism on the part of the chief editor of one of the two most influential journals in science is a good thing. No surprise there.

Perhaps it is better that McNutt's bias is out in the open. It's not like it was a big secret amongst climate scientists which type of papers got consideration anyways.

I have no problem whatsoever with the editor of Science scolding representatives rejecting sound science or pretending there's still some controversial debate over the validity of AGW. That you should call that "bias" is so stupid I don't even know how to characterize it. We needed to act 20 years ago. Your idiocy will destroy us all.

 

[IanC]

Leave politics to politicians.

People who are hired to be unbiased should be exactly that. Especially at their job, instead of using their influence to close down debate.

 

[Billy_Bob]

So crick thinks political activism on the part of the chief editor of one of the two most influential journals in science is a good thing. No surprise there.

Perhaps it is better that McNutt's bias is out in the open. It's not like it was a big secret amongst climate scientists which type of papers got consideration anyways.

I have no problem whatsoever with the editor of Science scolding representatives rejecting sound science or pretending there's still some controversial debate over the validity of AGW. That you should call that "bias" is so stupid I don't even know how to characterize it. We needed to act 20 years ago. Your idiocy will destroy us all.

I have shown you over and over again that the rates of warming as indistinguishable from natural variation. Please share with us how you all have controlled the climate and how 0.46 Deg C over the last 76 years was all man made..

Given natural variation there is nothing left to attribute to CO2. Maybe that is the reason we have only seen 1/2 of what should be CO2's warming rate all by itself. Something is acting as a very negative forcing, by a factor of 2, that your models are not programed for.

 

[IanC]

A few years back Willis made a simple one or two line approximation of A GCM that had a correlation of about 0.95.

Monckton et al have made a more complex approximation that doesn't need a supercomputer but still illustrates the areas that are weak and disagree with physical reality. Many assumptions are counter to reality, such as the evaporation rate per temperature change, as discussed on a different thread. Rebuttals to Monckton's paper fell mostly into the character assassination mode, which included the red herring excursion into Soon's funding which was inapplicable to this paper.