Climate Change


#121

Exactly, I’ve a pain in my hole from the cunts.
Climate change my arse.


#122

jesus @glasagusban , that went terribly wrong kid. :smiley:


#123

Just a pair of gobdaws talking shite mate, nothing to be concerned about.


#124

Up yer bollix @glasagusban

"A climate change researcher has claimed that scientists are confusing their role as impartial observers with green activism after his paper challenging predictions about the speed of global warming was rejected because it was seen as “less than helpful.”
Professor Lennart Bengtsson says recent McCarthy-style pressure from fellow academics forced him to resign from his post on a climate sceptic think-tank.
The research fellow from the University of Reading believes a paper he co-authored was deliberately suppressed from publicatoin in a leading journal because of an intolerance of dissenting views about climate change by scientists who peer-reviewed the work.
“The problem we have now in the scientific community is that some scientists are mixing up their scientific role with that of climate activist,” he told the Times.
Professor Bengtsson claims a scientist advised that the paper, which challenged findings that global temperature would increase by 4.5C if greenhouse gases were to double, should not be published in a respected journal because it was “less than helpful.”
The unnamed scientist, who was asked to peer review Professor Bengtsson’s paper, said in his comments: “Actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of ‘errors’ and worse from the climate sceptics side.”
The paper, co-authored with four other scientists, challenged the findings of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) but was rejected by Environmental Research Letters published by the Institute of Physics, one of the most highly regarded journals in the area.
Professor Bengtsson said he accepted emissions would increase the global temperature but questioned the rate at which this would take place and suggested more work needed to be done to determine this.
However he said it was unacceptable that a paper was rejected on the basis it might advance the argument of climate sceptics, as he suggested scientists were losing their impartial role.
He added: “It is an indication of how science is gradually being influenced by political views.”
IOP Publishing, which publishes Environmental Research Letters, did not respond directly to Professor Bengtsson’s comments.
A spokesman for the journal said his research was rejected for publication because two independent reviewers found errors in the paper and that the work did not represent a “significant advancement” in the field.
He said: “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.”
The professor, who is a former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, resigned as a member of the Global Warming Policy Foundation’s academic advisory council this week after spending just a month in the post.
In his resignation letter he described “enormous group pressure” which had become “unbearable.”
The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), which was founded by former chancellor of the exchequer Lord Lawson, was established because of concerns that government policies to combat climate change may be too radical.
The think tank describes itself as ‘open-minded on the contested science of global warming’.
Lord Lawson has agreed that Professor Bengtsson’s reference to McCarthyism were “fully warranted.” "


#125

His post at a climate sceptic think tank? So he formed his views before ever starting his research? And then he goes on a rant because peer reviews in journals said his work wasn’t of publishable quality!!! :smiley: :smiley: :smiley:

@balbec you mug!


#126

[QUOTE=“glasagusban, post: 945609, member: 1533”]His post at a climate sceptic think tank? So he formed his views before ever starting his research? And then he goes on a rant because peer reviews in journals said his work wasn’t of publishable quality!!! :smiley: :smiley: :smiley:

@balbec you mug![/QUOTE]

The problem, glas is that the climate change crowd have formed their view irrespective of any research findings. And that anyone who does not subscribe to their leftist anti progress agenda is vilified.

" Professor Bengtsson claims a scientist advised that the paper, which challenged findings that global temperature would increase by 4.5C if greenhouse gases were to double, should not be published in a respected journal because it was “less than helpful.” "

You Gowl :slight_smile:


#127

James Delingpole in The Daily Telegraph is the only man you can trust on this.


#128

[QUOTE=“balbec, post: 945613, member: 193”]The problem, glas is that the climate change crowd have formed their view irrespective of any research findings. And that anyone who does not subscribe to their leftist anti progress agenda is vilified.

" Professor Bengtsson claims a scientist advised that the paper, which challenged findings that global temperature would increase by 4.5C if greenhouse gases were to double, should not be published in a respected journal because it was “less than helpful.” "

You Gowl :)[/QUOTE]
…his research was rejected for publication because two independent reviewers found errors in the paper and that the work did not represent a “significant advancement” in the field.
He said: “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.”

Any experience publishing in peer reviewed journals? This is an academic throwing a hissy fit and blaming a conspiracy rather than accepting the response that his work was not of publishable quality.

It’s actually a very funny article. You absolute mug. :smiley: :smiley: :smiley:


#129

[QUOTE=“glasagusban, post: 945617, member: 1533”]…his research was rejected for publication because two independent reviewers found errors in the paper and that the work did not represent a “significant advancement” in the field.
He said: “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.”

Any experience publishing in peer reviewed journals? This is an academic throwing a hissy fit and blaming a conspiracy rather than accepting the response that his work was not of publishable quality.

It’s actually a very funny article. You absolute mug. :smiley: :smiley: :D[/QUOTE]

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS1MeWIF8T6RyAU1gzJGfJGwk0ZMlAuULkeLUUH5NO0rEnjGXVK


#130

Oh the irony @Julio Geordio.


#131

Ironing you mean, bud.


#132

It’s delicious.


#133

If climate change means we get 24 degree sunshine in the summer every year I don’t want to be right


#134

sometimes. He is a bit of a cunt in fairness.


#135

February 2016 the hottest on record. 1.35 degrees above average.

Chart below shows the extent of the deviation from the norm. At the Arctic temperatures have been as much as 16 degrees above average in recent months.

Pretty staggering. Donald Trump won’t be moved I expect.


#136

Fuck. Hope its just a natural peak that happens (relatively) regularly and before they were able to record.


#137

That’s what the climate change guys can’t grasp. In the grand scheme of things they are dealing with a miniscule dataset .


#138

What a bunch of clowns.


#139

Don’t start me on “above average” again. It really grinds my gears.


#140

What dataset would you like to work with?