Climate Science Has Become ‘Blind’ To Green Bias

Scientists Condemned For Political Bias On Climate Change

Climate scientists who vilified a colleague for advising a think-tank are “blind to their own biases”, according to a former senior member of the UN’s climate change advisory body. Mike Hulme, professor of climate and culture at King’s College London, condemned fellow scientists for “harassing” Lennart Bengtsson, and gave warning that climate science had become too political. He condemned climate scientists who “believe it’s their role to pass public judgment on whether a scientific colleague should offer advice to political, public or a campaigning organisations and to harass that scientist until they ‘fall into line’.”—Ben Webster, The Times, 17 May 2014

Anybody who imagines that the theory of projected catastrophic man-made global warming is a matter of reason – or “settled” science — is woefully naïve. It is religion. Perceived infidelity leads to harsh moral condemnation. Heresy must be silenced. Perhaps the degree of vituperation is related to the fact that alarmist reports, such as the recent voluminous U.S. National Climate Assessment Report, NCAR, now tend to be ignored. This is not analogous to the boy who cried wolf. The wolf turned up. This is more like the boy who cried unicorn.—Peter Foster, Financial Post, 16 May 2014 Benny Peiser, of the GWPF, said professor Bengtsson’s case was just one example of a ‘poisonous atmosphere’ pervading climate change research. He said many scientists with dissenting views were having their research rejected by the editors of scientific journals, and young scientists were censoring their work out of fear for their careers. Dr Peiser said: ‘Over the last few years, the editors of many of the world’s leading science journals have publicly advocated drastic policies to curb carbon dioxide emissions. At the same time, many have publicly attacked scientists sceptical of the climate alarm. Instead of serving as open-minded broker of the contested fields of climate science and climate science, most science editors have opted to take a dogmatic stance that no longer allows for open research.’ –Fiona Macrea, Daily Mail, 17 May

The media have been saying that the collapse of the West Antarctic glaciers is unstoppable; nothing can halt their retreat, say the headlines. They add that man-made climate change is one of the driving factors that will result in sea-level rises that will alter the coastlines of the world. It’s clear that this region is currently the most changeable part of Antarctica, but it’s not clear why, or how long it will go on for. Despite having local unstable regions Antarctica has more sea ice surrounding it than for many years, with more ice being added than is being lost by glaciers in the West Antarctic. Sea ice is however not the same as land ice. Sea ice is more variable and does not contribute to sea-level rise. No one really knows why the Antarctic sea ice is expanding, undermined as it is by the very same warm water that is said to be responsible for the increased glacier flow in the West Antarctic.—David Whitehouse, The Global Warming Policy Foundation, 16 May 2014 Lennart Bengtsson being bullied by colleagues is only the latest example of bad behavior by climate scientists who have made a deal with the devil. They have exchanged their scientific souls for research grants, prestige, and easy access to scientific journals to publish their papers. I predict history will not treat them kindly, and the reputation of all climate scientists will be tarnished in the process. This bad behavior by the climate science community is nothing new. It’s been going on for at least 20 years. Some of us (Christy, Lindzen, myself and others) have put up with many years of unfair treatment by a handful of activist gate-keeping colleagues.—Roy Spencer, 16 May 2014

Guest Column Dr. Benny Peiser -- Bio and Archives Items of notes and interest from the web.

{/exp:ce_cache:it}