Rasmussen: 69% Say It’s Likely Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming Research

[westwall]

There is one party in the modern world that doesn't believe in global warming. The Grand Old Brainwash Party, the GOB. LOL!

Didnt you get the memo. Its climate change

No, that wasn't working so they changed it again to "global climate disruption". Then they conveniently don't look at past history because when they do they find more storms that were also more powerful then what we are seeing today. But those would be "facts" and the globalwarmingclimatechangeglobalclimatedisruption cult doesn't "do" facts.

 

[westwall]

Science by polls.

Only in Conservatopia.

The so-called "scientific consensus" is nothing more than a poll, but warmist turds like you swear by it.

And you guys swear by a conspiracy theory that hundreds of scientists spread across the globe all made up global warming so they could raise taxes or whatever.

But hey you don't see any difference between the opinions of random people and the opinions of experts who actually study this stuff.

If the "experts" limited themselves to accurately reporting the facts and didn't engage in a conspiricy to deny opposing viewpoints in the various Journals, I would agree with you. However, they did and still do all of those things. In a court of law they would be classified as perjurors, and as they say in court, once a liar...allways a liar. They are scientific pariahs and they are damaging science as a whole.

 

[Father Time]

And your proof of this conspiracy is ...?

 

[westwall]

And your proof of this conspiracy is ...?

Below is a post from Reason and below that is a link to the scientists CV. Below that are links to other stories about how the peer review procvess was corrupted. And, of course you have it from the horses mouth. And all the way at the bottom below the very few links I provided is the sordid tale of the effort by Steig to scupper a study that contradicted a study that he had co-authored. He was a reviewer of the study that contradicted his study ...a clear violation of scientific ethics.


I can go on and on for days posting about the corruption within the climatological community.

“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep
them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

Phil Jones to Michael Mann, Climategate emails, July 8th 2004.



Climategate and Scientific Journal Chicanery

Ronald Bailey | November 30, 2009


"Eduardo Zorita, a researcher on past temperature trends at the Institute for Coastal Research in Germany, is calling for prominent Climategate reseachers, Phil Jones, Michael Mann, and Stefan Rahmstorf, to be banned from any future work on the Intergrovernmental Panel on Climate Change's reports. But Zorita makes an even more interesting and very disturbing observation:


By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication. My area of research happens to be the climate of the past millennia, where I think I am appreciated by other climate-research 'soldiers'....

I may confirm what has been written in other places: research in some areas of climate science has been and is full of machination, conspiracies, and collusion, as any reader can interpret from the CRU-files. They depict a realistic, I would say even harmless, picture of what the real research in the area of the climate of the past millennium has been in the last years. The scientific debate has been in many instances hijacked to advance other agendas.

These words do not mean that I think anthropogenic climate change is a hoax. On the contrary, it is a question which we have to be very well aware of. But I am also aware that in this thick atmosphere -and I am not speaking of greenhouse gases now- editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations,even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed. In this atmosphere, Ph D students are often tempted to tweak their data so as to fit the 'politically correct picture'. Some, or many issues, about climate change are still not well known. Policy makers should be aware of the attempts to hide these uncertainties under a unified picture. I had the 'pleasure' to experience all this in my area of research.

Zorita evidently expects to be punished by reviewers and journal editors for his call for scientific honesty. It will be interesting to see many more researchers will now step forward to discuss the subtle and not so subtle biasing of climate change research. Stay tuned."



Climategate and Scientific Journal Chicanery - Hit & Run : Reason Magazine

Eduardo Zorita, home page at HZG

'Climategate' shows the need for openness by scientists | Environment | The Observer

http://rossmckitrick.weebly.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/gatekeeping_chapter.pdf





“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep
them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

Phil Jones to Michael Mann, Climategate emails, July 8th 2004.

If you can’t spot what’s wrong with this email, don’t worry you’re in great company. Among the numerous luminaries who can’t are environmental activist and filmmaker Rupert Murray, celebrity mathematician Simon Singh, celebrity Nobel Prizewinner Sir Paul Nurse and celebrity Guardian doctor Ben Goldacre to name but four. To each one of them I have tried on occasion to explain why the corruption of “peer-review” is the issue that matters above all else in the Climategate emails. But none of them, sadly, was bright enough to get it.

Sigh.

Let me have one more stab. Here’s how I explain “Peer review” in my forthcoming book Watermelons:


Peer review is the benchmark by which most new scientific research tends to be judged. If that research is to be taken seriously by the scientific community then it must be accepted for publication by one of a fairly small number of academic or quasi-academic journals, such as Nature, Science and Scientific American.

Peer review is not a perfect system. In the golden era of Twentieth century science it wasn’t even thought necessary: neither Watson & Crick nor Einstein were peer reviewed. But in today’s abstruse, fragmented world where the various branches of science have grown increasingly recondite and specialised, peer-review has become widely accepted as the least worst method by which quality science can be sifted from junk science.

And nowhere more so than within the climate science community. In the run-up to Climategate, one of the main weapons used by those within “the consensus” against dissenting scientists was that their various papers picking holes in AGW theory had not been “peer-reviewed” and were therefore invalid. As Phil Jones himself puts it in one of his emails:

“The peer review system is the safeguard science has adopted to stop bad science being published.”

I think that’s pretty clear, don’t you? Now let us revisit that Jones/Mann exchange in the light of this knowledge. What we see happening is the deterioration of “peer review” into something more akin to “pal review.” The “peer review” process – at least in the debased field of “climate science” – has been corrupted. No longer can it be relied on as a guide to what is true or untrue, correct or incorrect, plausible or implausible. That’s because the scientists who control the “peer review” process – as revealed by the Climategate emails – are a self-serving claque, with rather less concern for the pursuit of objective truth than for their own vested interests.

With me so far? Good. Now we can move on to an incredibly complicated story which is causing much excitement at Watts Up With That?, Climate Audit and Bishop Hill at the moment. Some are saying its as damning of the “Consensus” as Climategate. It involves two people you’ve probably never heard of – Eric Steig and Ryan O’Donnell.

Eric Steig is a member of Michael Mann’s “Hockey Team” – the group of Warmist scientists who established a website called Real Climate, initially to rebut claims by McIntyre and McKitrick that Mann’s Hockey Stick wasn’t quite up to scratch, later to stick up for the Warmist cause generally.

In 2009 Steig et al published a paper considered so important that it made the cover of Nature. (H/T Barry Woods). The paper purported to counter one of the main arguments used by sceptics to dispute “global warming”, viz “if global warming really is as catastrophic and universal as some claim, then how come Antarctica remains as stubbornly cold as it was 30 years ago?” Steig’s paper showed that contrary to earlier claims, Antarctica was in fact warming too.

Or was it? Among the sceptics who suspected the reliability of Steig’s paper were Jeff Id (of the late-lamented Air Vent site) and Ryan O’Donnell. They pointed out that the statistical methods used to show this alleged warming were based on highly dubious extrapolations of data taken from small number of stations on the Arctic peninsula and coastline. (Something similar happened recently, you’ll remember, with NASA’s dramatic “warming” that took place in the Arctic – all of it, funnily enough, in places where there were no thermometers to check the reliability of NASA’s claims).

Steig suggested that rather than argue it out on the blogs O’Donnell, Id at el should publish a paper under peer review. So that’s what they tried. And guess which person it was who was selected to review O’Donnell et al’s paper. And guess which person it was – under the pseudonym Reviewer A – who tried to thwart the paper’s progression to publication with 88 pages of comments and obfuscation ten times longer than the original paper.

Yep. You got it. The mystery peer reviewer was none other than Eric Steig. Even in the monstrously corrupt world of “climate science” this was clearly a breach of protocol. Certainly, in no other scientific discipline would a reviewer with such a clear conflict of interest be invited to review a paper whose main purpose was to criticise one he’d written himself.

Now let us allow Iapogus (the commenter at Bishop Hill from whom I filched this summary: I’m an interpreter of interpretations, me) to continue the story:


Ryan guessed that Reviewer A was Stieg early on, but still remained patient and good natured. At one point in the review process, Steig suggested that Ryan and Jeff should use an alternative statistical technique, which they then did. But then later, Steig then criticised the paper, citing the example of the same statistical technique as an issue (the one he had suggested). So Steig has laid himself open to charges of unprofessional conduct, duplicity. And that was when Ryan decided to bring all this out in the open. Meanwhile Gavin and the other members of the Team at the Real Climate (RC) blog have gone into overdrive in moderating any commenter who ask any reasonable questions about all of this. Basically this was the evidence that peer review at least in climate science is broken.

Now you could argue that I shouldn’t be reporting on stories like this. It’s one of those “How many polar bears can dance on the head of the pin?” discussions of nuances of meaning which may be of tremendous interest to the “climate science” community – both sceptics and warmists alike – but which has little traction in the outside world.

Up to a point, I’d agree with this. The AGW debate – as I repeatedly argue in this blog – is essentially a political one not a scientific one.

Unfortunately, there are still lots of people out there – the Simon Singhs, the Sir Paul Nurses, the Ben Goldacres, the Robin Inces, and their Guardianista Twitter Posses, for example – who think otherwise.

And it’s important that these people are made to realise that not only are there no sensible political or economic arguments to support their cause, but passing few scientific ones either. If the science supporting AGW theory is really as rock solid as Warmists claim, why on earth would they need to resort to the kind of corruption and dirty tricks we first saw in Climategate and are now witnessing again in RealClimategate?

Give up, guys. The game’s over.

PS One more thing. Undoubtedly one of the best things ever to happen to the (somewhat dubious and generally second-rater-friendly) field of Climate Science has been the Watts Up With That? website. Not least among its achievements is to show the way forward after the death of “peer review”. The future is “peer to peer” review, at which WUWT excels. It has become a forum for experts from all scientific disciplines to assess various aspects of climate science rigorously and without the grotesque bias we’ve unfortunately seen so often among the “consensus” scientists at the IPCC. And now WUWT has rightly been put up for the Best Science Blog in the 2011 Bloggies Awards. It deserves your support. Vote early, vote often!


Tags: Antarctica, Eric Steig, Hockey Team, Jeff Id, Michael Mann, Phil Jones, RealClimategate, Ryan O'Donnell, Watermelons

 

[Father Time]

I haven't read through the whole thing but

And your proof of this conspiracy is ...?

“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

Phil Jones to Michael Mann, Climategate emails, July 8th 2004.

And yet they were in the final report. This isn't exactly evidence of a grand conspiracy.

And the whole point of peer review is that they filter out papers that are crap so show me a quote of someone saying they are denying a paper because it's anti Global Warming.

 

[Father Time]

Your third source

"Russell found the CRU scientists were innocent of subverting the peer-review process, "

The last source was made by an economist, not a scientist who heads a think tank that fights global warming legislation and was published by another think tank. What a great damn source.

and Mr. Zorita doesn't trash peer review and claims that global warming ISN'T a hoax.

 

[skookerasbil]

And as Hope & Change falls further and further into the depths of the shithouse, so to will fall public policy initiatives in support of anything related to global warming!! In fact, its on NOBODYS radar except in the few districts populated by hordes of the radical mental cases dedicated to "causes". Sure they are out there but here in 2011, they are politically insignificant given the problems in the country.

IN other words............the science doesnt matter s0ns!!!

 

[Old Rocks]

Can the 69% point out the falsifications in the research?

We have, many times... Go look for yourself.

Like hell you have. All you have presented are political rants from sites with zero scientific standing.

Present us with a single Scientific Society, a single National Academy of Science, or a single major University that states the science behind AGW is incorrect. You cannot, because none exist. Not even in Outer Slobovia.

 

[Old Rocks]

Can the 69% point out the falsifications in the research?

I've been posting articles about falsified data for years.

here is just one example:

A Pending American Temperaturegate « The Global Warming Hoax

And what peer reviewed journal was that published in?

Stupid ass, what you are stating is that there is a world wide conspriracy among scientists from every discipline to falsify data. Need more tinfoil for your hat? The Scientific Society that has the most climate scientists in it, the American Geophysical Union, statement concerning global warming is unequivocal.

AGU Position Statement: Human Impacts on Climate

AGU Position Statement
Human Impacts on Climate
Adopted by Council December 2003
Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007

The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

During recent millennia of relatively stable climate, civilization became established and populations have grown rapidly. In the next 50 years, even the lower limit of impending climate change—an additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade—is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it. Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and—if sustained over centuries—melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters. If this 2°C warming is to be avoided, then our net annual emissions of CO2 must be reduced by more than 50 percent within this century. With such projections, there are many sources of scientific uncertainty, but none are known that could make the impact of climate change inconsequential. Given the uncertainty in climate projections, there can be surprises that may cause more dramatic disruptions than anticipated from the most probable model projections.

With climate change, as with ozone depletion, the human footprint on Earth is apparent. The cause of disruptive climate change, unlike ozone depletion, is tied to energy use and runs through modern society. Solutions will necessarily involve all aspects of society. Mitigation strategies and adaptation responses will call for collaborations across science, technology, industry, and government. Members of the AGU, as part of the scientific community, collectively have special responsibilities: to pursue research needed to understand it; to educate the public on the causes, risks, and hazards; and to communicate clearly and objectively with those who can implement policies to shape future climate.

 

[Old Rocks]

That's what the warmist con artists are counting on. However, it won't be a "non-factor" if the government taxes us to the tune of $trillions to pay for this boondoggle.

I pay oil and farm subsidies so what else is new about warming subsidies?

they are based on a non-falsifiable theory
that is not science that is more like a religion

You are one ******* stupid ass. Take all of your science from an obese junkie. Here is clearly falsefiable data and hypothesis, but no one has yet falsified any of it.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

 

[Neotrotsky]

I pay oil and farm subsidies so what else is new about warming subsidies?

they are based on a non-falsifiable theory
that is not science that is more like a religion

You are one ******* stupid ass. Take all of your science from an obese junkie. Here is clearly falsefiable data and hypothesis, but no one has yet falsified any of it.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Yes, first we had global cooling in the 70's then global warming
not Climate change, the name had to change with each wrong prediction (quite the science indeed)

Since the Climate change sympathizers take every bad weather condition
proof of Climate Change, they have made it non-falsifiable, it has become a religion
What would they except proof against their theory, if all bad weather supports it?

Indeed, before man who knew the climate changed


profanity does not help you and only makes you look more
stupid

 

[Old Rocks]

Can the 69% point out the falsifications in the research?

Actually, yes they can, as can anyone who chooses to open their eyes and actually look.

Then why have not you done so? You state you are a geologist and a member both of the AGU and the Royal Society. So where is you article in a peer reviewed journal falsifing the idea that the absorption bands of CO2 and other GHGs warm the atmosphere.

 

[Old Rocks]

they are based on a non-falsifiable theory
that is not science that is more like a religion

A warmist would think: "If it can't be proven wrong, then it must be true!"

It is almost like that,,,,

First we had global warming then global cooling now climate change.

Indeed, since they have one believe that all bad weather can be blamed on "climate change"
how does one test their theory?

You can't - that is not science; it is more like a religion

Dumb ****, show some real science concerning your statemenst. Thus far, all you have done is flap yap. Here on the West Coast, we have watched our mountain glaciers get smaller with every decade. Just one easily observable effect of the warming that we are seeing.

 

[Neotrotsky]

A warmist would think: "If it can't be proven wrong, then it must be true!"

It is almost like that,,,,

First we had global warming then global cooling now climate change.

Indeed, since they have one believe that all bad weather can be blamed on "climate change"
how does one test their theory?

You can't - that is not science; it is more like a religion

Dumb ****, show some real science concerning your statemenst. Thus far, all you have done is flap yap. Here on the West Coast, we have watched our mountain glaciers get smaller with every decade. Just one easily observable effect of the warming that we are seeing.

Profanity only shows how weak your position is...
Do you kiss your family members with that mouth
oh never mind



So sad, to think in all of earth history, it never got warm or cold before
Papa Obama releasing all that carbon with his campaign fund raising must have
you concerned as well

I know! Let us pray to Mother Gaia for forgiveness

 

[Old Rocks]

Science by polls.

Only in Conservatopia.

The so-called "scientific consensus" is nothing more than a poll, but warmist turds like you swear by it.

Sheesh. There are 97 publishing climatologists in the world. 95 of them state unequivocally that AGW is a fact. The other two, Singer and Lindzen, Singer states it is not, and Lindzen says that it is a fact, but exagerated. However, both testified before Congress for the tobacco companies that tobaco is harmless.

Turd is what you have for brains, idiot child.

 

[Old Rocks]

It is almost like that,,,,

First we had global warming then global cooling now climate change.

Indeed, since they have one believe that all bad weather can be blamed on "climate change"
how does one test their theory?

You can't - that is not science; it is more like a religion

Dumb ****, show some real science concerning your statemenst. Thus far, all you have done is flap yap. Here on the West Coast, we have watched our mountain glaciers get smaller with every decade. Just one easily observable effect of the warming that we are seeing.

Profanity only shows how weak your position is...
Do you kiss your family members with that mouth
oh never mind



So sad, to think in all of earth history, it never got warm or cold before
Papa Obama releasing all that carbon with his campaign fund raising must have
you concerned as well

I know! Let us pray to Mother Gaia for forgiveness

I give people like you exactly the respect you deserve.

Care to point out any science in support of your position? Or is that something that is alien to you?

Do you understand what a peer reviewed scientific journal is?

 

[Old Rocks]

There is one party in the modern world that doesn't believe in global warming. The Grand Old Brainwash Party, the GOB. LOL!

Didnt you get the memo. Its climate change

No, that wasn't working so they changed it again to "global climate disruption". Then they conveniently don't look at past history because when they do they find more storms that were also more powerful then what we are seeing today. But those would be "facts" and the globalwarmingclimatechangeglobalclimatedisruption cult doesn't "do" facts.

Really? The only time that I can think of where there was as significant disruption of normal weather as we have seen in the last 12 months, was about two years ago, 1816.

You are the one that does not do facts, or science, for that matter. You claim that the vast majority of scientists are frauds, then claim to be one yourself. What an ass.

 

[Old Rocks]

The so-called "scientific consensus" is nothing more than a poll, but warmist turds like you swear by it.

And you guys swear by a conspiracy theory that hundreds of scientists spread across the globe all made up global warming so they could raise taxes or whatever.

But hey you don't see any difference between the opinions of random people and the opinions of experts who actually study this stuff.

If the "experts" limited themselves to accurately reporting the facts and didn't engage in a conspiricy to deny opposing viewpoints in the various Journals, I would agree with you. However, they did and still do all of those things. In a court of law they would be classified as perjurors, and as they say in court, once a liar...allways a liar. They are scientific pariahs and they are damaging science as a whole.

I see. The majority of the people in the AGU, the Royal Society, and the GSA are liars and frauds. That is your position.

Seems to me that by that position, one person for sure is labeled a liar, a fraud, and a scientific pariah. And it sure ain't the people reporting on the melting glaciers, warmer temperatures, and obvious consequences of those things that we are seeing right now.

 

[rdean]

And you guys swear by a conspiracy theory that hundreds of scientists spread across the globe all made up global warming so they could raise taxes or whatever.

But hey you don't see any difference between the opinions of random people and the opinions of experts who actually study this stuff.

If the "experts" limited themselves to accurately reporting the facts and didn't engage in a conspiricy to deny opposing viewpoints in the various Journals, I would agree with you. However, they did and still do all of those things. In a court of law they would be classified as perjurors, and as they say in court, once a liar...allways a liar. They are scientific pariahs and they are damaging science as a whole.

I see. The majority of the people in the AGU, the Royal Society, and the GSA are liars and frauds. That is your position.

Seems to me that by that position, one person for sure is labeled a liar, a fraud, and a scientific pariah. And it sure ain't the people reporting on the melting glaciers, warmer temperatures, and obvious consequences of those things that we are seeing right now.

I used to find it painful to read anything coming from "conservative America" that tried to explain anything scientific in any way whatsoever. Then I realized it was all a matter of "perspective". You have to approach what they say as "satire", then it suddenly becomes "readable".

As I pointed out, these are people that "insist" that more than 6% of scientists have simply got to be Republican and conservative. But these very same people are telling their children that scientists are lazy liars and the Grand Canyon was created by "Noah's Flood" as historically documented in the children's fable, "The story of Noah's Ark".

Once right wing children are fully indoctrinated, there is no way they would ever study "real science". They only see science as a "competing faith".

 

[Old Rocks]

they are based on a non-falsifiable theory
that is not science that is more like a religion

You are one ******* stupid ass. Take all of your science from an obese junkie. Here is clearly falsefiable data and hypothesis, but no one has yet falsified any of it.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Yes, first we had global cooling in the 70's then global warming
not Climate change, the name had to change with each wrong prediction (quite the science indeed)

Since the Climate change sympathizers take every bad weather condition
proof of Climate Change, they have made it non-falsifiable, it has become a religion
What would they except proof against their theory, if all bad weather supports it?

Indeed, before man who knew the climate changed


profanity does not help you and only makes you look more
stupid

Sheesh, still the stupid lying ass.

Did scientists predict an impending ice age in the 1970s?

The fact is that around 1970 there were 6 times as many scientists predicting a warming rather than a cooling planet. Today, with 30+years more data to analyse, we've reached a clear scientific consensus: 97% of working climate scientists agree with the view that human beings are causing global warming.

http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/~brianpm/download/charney_report.pdf

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/weekinreview/warm1956.pdf