The treatment of Bengtsson is typical of the alarmist camp who censor and lie and exaggerate and bully with gay abandon.

Other great scientists like Bob Carter, Murray Salby, Richard Tol, Miskolczi, David Bellamy, Don Aitkin, Clive Spash and many others who work in government bureaucracies all have lost their jobs when they argued against the alarmist propaganda.

The censorship and bullying permeates the entire alarmist structure from the top with people like US Interior Secretary Sally Jewell when she said she hoped there are “no climate change deniers” at her agency, to the key scientists advocating AGW like Jones and the others who were caught in the email scandal plotting to stop sceptical scientists from publishing.

In the case of Bengtsson the journal which rejected his ground-breaking paper on temperature we have on the editorial staff the infamous Peter Gleick:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/01/new-evidence-released-in-fakegate-global-warming-scandal/

And how many times have we seen alarmists want to jail sceptics like this Lawrence Torcello chump:

https://theconversation.com/is-misinformation-about-the-climate-criminally-negligent-23111#comment_333276

And alarmists of course think sceptics are mad:

http://www.examiner.com/article/oregon-professor-climate-change-skeptics-diseased-need-treatment

The tactics of the alarmists have been deplorable from day one and as their great cause is increasingly revealed as the rubbish it is we can expect these tactics to become even worse.

"Whatever your view on global warming and its causes, I feel certain you'll agree that this is too important an issue to approach with anything less than the highest levels of integrity, on all sides of the debate." Mal little that I've seen of the debate so far gives me any confidence that is a likely scenario.

I think there are far to many vested interests on both sides of the debate combined with a seeming broad acceptance of a whatever it takes mentality. Those vested interests don't have to be strictly about personal financial (or status) gain either. They tie to broader social objectives that people perceive the AGW issue as either helping or harming.

I don't know how the argument moves beyond that, my impression is that both sides have bunkered down and try very hard to not give any ground that may help the opposing view. In the process that will alleniate those whose suspicions are raised when it's clear that they are being mislead at least in part.

R0bert

Well the Abbott Government by nailing its colors to the wall on science, with around a 170 billion clawed back from CRSIO, (science) and an additional 250 billion rolled out for school chaplains!? Religion!
PM Abbott needs to take such credit a is due for this absurd and asinine decision?
Just one of many!
Rhrosty.

The other asinine approach, is related to some of the carbon free energy assets we could have rolled out as income earning infrastructure; including cheaper than coal thorium.
Ideal for military bases, small towns and their industrial estates, where deep burial, makes them as small models, extremely safe!
The fact that these can be mass produced and rolled out where and when needed, should provide a huge economic boost for the entire non-mining economy, which really does need to one which still makes things.
We have plenty of money for such projects!
All that is required is to eliminate welfare for the rich! And then means test service delivery!
We should all put the shoulder to the wheel to make a much bigger economy, that would then make all of us better off!
We could then crack on with real tax reform and massive simplification, which would then confer the least costly tax collection model!
Australia would then become the flame to the moth, that has high tech companies, and millions of self funded retirees, queuing to relocate here, particularly, if we act to return affordability to the housing market!
Which also boost the non mining domestic economy.
Retirees make no demand for schools or education, and as an entry requirement, need to also carry self sufficient health cover; which would then allow us to more fully use up our vastly underutilized private health industry, and for profit nursing homes?
None of which would need to roll out additional maternity care as part of the compact!?
As for remote water, well we do have the Great Artesian Basin; and we can use huge northern water surpluses, to inject billions of litres into it, at its northern most borders.
Besides, providing more localized power, would make it far more reliable, and vastly less costly than maintaining the great white elephant of a national grid, which given transmission line losses, makes such energy as it transmits, already twice as expensive as the localized models would provide!
Rhrosty.

A scientific journal rejected a manuscript after review. This happens to every working scientist, and sometimes it will seem unfair. Instead of whingeing about it, most scientists just revise their paper, and submit it for publication elsewhere. If it has merit it will get published.

Rather than revising and resubmitting, this Bengtsson fellow decides to have a hissy fit and go crying to the newspapers instead. He really should just harden up and work on getting his manuscript accepted somewhere else. End of story.

JBSH; your comment is disingenuous. The paper was not rejected on merit; it was rejected for these reasons:

"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"…

From:http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/science/article4091344.ece

That's just straight censorship. Science should not be run on the back of a bunch of ideologically driven scientists censoring and bullying other real scientists.

Sigh.

As usual fact checking is not high on the agenda among the science denial community.

http://ioppublishing.org/newsDetails/statement-from-iop-publishing-on-story-in-the-times

"The full quote actually said “Summarising, the simplistic comparison of ranges from AR4, AR5, and Otto et al, combined with the statement they are inconsistent is less then helpful, actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of "errors" and worse from the climate sceptics media side.”"

Ho hum. Cherry picking quotes. Where have we seen that before.

Agro exceeds even his standards of disingenuousness.

The Journal with Gleick on the Editorial staff says:

"“Summarising, the simplistic comparison of ranges from AR4, AR5, and Otto et al, combined with the statement they are inconsistent is less then helpful, actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of "errors" and worse from the climate sceptics media side.”

So any paper which points out the inconsistencies with AGW science is "less than helpful" and opens the door to sceptic claims which are oversimplified.

What could be more simple than AGW science with its many internal inconsistencies?! When you have simple errors in AGW your criticism of these errors must be simple too.

What a farrago. The 'explanation' by the paper confirms the complaint and agro thinks it vindicates them.

The MO of deniers is to hang on any nuance that can possibly be construed. E.g. there has been no significant warming for 17 years, wheras the real case is that there has been, if one does not focus only on surface temperature. They prefer to oversimplify the matter because it serves their myopic purpose.

There were reasons for the article being rejected going well beyond a perception by one reviewer who was cognisant of the propensity for deniers to go off half-cocked. He obviously thought the author could allay this concern by making a " significant attempt at explaining or understanding the differences ... [The paper] does not clarify anything but puts up the (false) claim of some big inconsistency, where no consistency was to be expected in the first place".

See here: http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2014/05/top-scientific-journal-rejects-times-front-page-article-claims/

We know that the global warmers and their computer games programmers entirely failed to predict the current 18 year absence of global warming.

We also know that the global warmers have failed to explain why such an absence of warming does not demolish the theory that warming is "caused" by that tiny part of the atmosphere which is human-generated carbon dioxide (about 0.12 per cent by volume, if my memory is correct, of which 40 per cent is absorbed by land and oceans anyway).

And, of course, it's a matter of public record that fat Al Gore and tremulous Tim Flannery and others are standing jokes because of their failed predictions.

But can anybody recall ANY of the global warmers' predictions which have actually come to pass? Remember, the scare stories (usually of the "worse than previously believed" variety) have been running since the late 1970s.

ANY prediction? Anybody?

The disappearance of Arctic ice comes to mind but, of course, everyone knows that's not happening.

Luciferase provides a good example of the oleaginous global warmer.

Once it was clear "global warming" wasn't happening it became "climate change". Once "climate change" wasn't happening and there has been no atmospheric warming for 18 years, the likes of Luciferase slip and slide into "no surface warming".

"Global" means, ummm...global. And it ain't happening.

So what's your personal interest, Luciferase? Part of the Big Green Climate Change Conspiracy and on the public tit, I presume.

Get out now and find another research interest. Beat the rush.

Another day another Anti-global warming post on OLO.The right lost it's fight over creationism ( though some still want to fight) so now they have a new flag to rally around. In the end they will loose one too. There is only way way this war on reality can go, as science sends more light on our understanding the more the dogmatic right will have to fall back.

Luci, the Arctic has rebounded and sea ice has increased since the 2012 low point:

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/Sea_Ice_Extent_v2_L.png

And as I said to ant the lowest point in Arctic sea ice was in 1974.

cobber the mutt turns up with his usual rubbish and compares sceptics to creationists. This is most ironic since it is the alarmists who rely on received knowledge and treat it as gospel. In fact it is the alarmists who have a faith based belief in AGW.

Bad boy cobber; back to your kennel.

"However, as I once respectfully pointed out to the then head of BBC Religion (TV), Sir David constantly presents a worldview which assumes that there is little place for Christian faith in the world of reliable science." Mal Fletcher

Cohenite its important you understand who your bed follows are, this is an issue where motiveation often overrides facts.

Oh cohenite, you are such a chump. You are only embarrassing yourself now.

I can claim a logical fallacy bingo from your posts.

First there is a version of “appeal to consequences”
Secondly there is an “ad hominem”
Thirdly there is “Cherry picking”
Fourthly there is a “straw man”
Fifthly there is “Hasty generalisation”

But the real problem with Bengsston’s paper is:

“One cannot and should not simply interpret the IPCCs ranges for AR4 or 5 as confidence intervals or pdfs and hence they are not directly comparable to observation based intervals (as e.g. in Otto et al).”

http://ioppublishing.org/newsDetails/statement-from-iop-publishing-on-story-in-the-times

That is, the whole premise of the argument was wrong. That is why it was rejected.

But I see cohenite just can’t resist cherry picking. I suppose when you don’t have any real data in support of your argument cherry picking is all you have left. So sea ice extent is recovering, because 2013 was higher than 2012 in a notoriously variable data set? What a joke.

Just to illustrate: September ice extent comparisons from 1978 to 2013 http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2013/10/Figure3_Sept2013_trend-350x261.png
Current spring sea ice extent comparing 2014 with the record low year of 2012. http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries_thumb.png

Oh dear it does look like cohenite’s claim that sea ice has rebounded will be proven wrong. But then that is what we have come to expect from cohenite.

Cato, I predict that the economy can grow, if we roll out cheaper than coal, thorium power.
Which as very localized power options, could more than halve current power charges; but only as publicly owned, income earning, virtually self funded projects!
I mean, the great white elephant called the national grid, looses halve the power generated, in transmission losses!
Who do you think pays for those losses, the insanely altruistic, price gouging, debt laden, foreign owners, or money hungry state authorities, with too many hands in the till?
I also predict, if we put a million dollars a ton on carbon, nobody would need to pay so much as a centavo; if we just included a cap, which could be current emission!
People could earn some tax breaks however, if they lowered their carbon output, with proven claims!
When should we start?
After some of the ice on Antarctica melts, like a collapsing dam wall, releasing a huge body (lake) of fresh water, enough to raise sea levels by around three metres!
If that occurs, as it could, I predict the Cato's of this world will whinge loud and often, with!
Why weren't we told, endless complaining!
Rhrosty.

An interesting American article which is about people effected by climate change are seeking compensation through the Court system.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/05/19/3439048/insurance-climate-class-action-flood/

During 2014 and late 2013, the US has been experiencing weather anomalies throughout the country. They have experienced snow where snow has not been experienced, in other areas they have been experiencing drought and bushfires, elsewhere there have been severe floods, in Alaska high temperatures have resulted in permafrost melt and lack of protective ice along coastlines.

Professor Lesack has reviewed temperatures in relation to the McKenzie River for decades (from 1958) and found winter temperature have risen over 5 degrees celsius and Spring temperatures over 3 degrees celsius.
The Arctic has been described as the canary of climate change.

Those who disagree that climate change is happening try every avenue possible to slow the process of accepting climate change to allow for proper planning. In the meantime, fossil fuel mining continues increasing CO2 to be dispersed in the atmosphere and waterways. Ph levels are changing in waterways becoming more acidic and scientists are able to identify sources of CO2 in the atmosphere through the assessed isotopes.

So really, complaining about whether a paper has been accepted or not by a reputable journal is nit picking against a climate that is changing. There needs to be a strong belief that climate change is occurring for litigation to take place to gain compensation for damage done.
Fossil fuel mining companies have used SLAPP type legal cases to seek to silence climate scientists without much success.

cohenite stated "And as I said to ant the lowest point in Arctic sea ice was in 1974."
The discussion was about whether there was more sea ice cover between 1974 or 1978.
This was my comment at the time:
However, the trend line shows that ice coverage has been decreasing for decades. What happens between one season and another is meaningless, changes need to be seen happening over decades. In the 1960s there did appear to be a decline though nothing approaching the period when satellites began to measure ice levels.

There has been a notable decline in sea ice since 1978, it reached a low point in 2012 and did extend further in 2013. Yet, in 2013 the ice was quite fractured and the ice was thin.

Never mind about "logical fallacy bingo" agro; you and the rest of the acolytes will be undertaking the Homer stages of grief when this farce collapses:

"Hibbert: You can expect to go through five stages. The first is denial.
Homer: No way, because I'm not dying!
Hibbert: Second is anger.
Homer: Why you little... Da-! Guuuuuh! Yaaaaah!
Hibbert: After that, comes fear.
Homer: (paranoid) What's after fear? What's after fear?
Hibbert: Bargaining.
Homer: Doc, you've got to get me out of this. I'll make it worth your while.
Hibbert: And finally, acceptance.
Homer: Well, we've all got to go sometime.
Hibbert: Mr. Simpson, your progress astounds me."

Just replace Homer with agro or any other alarmist of choice!

As for poor Bengtsson and the latest excuse from Environmental Research Letters; it's astounding; they say:

"One cannot and should not simply interpret the IPCCs ranges for AR4 or 5 as confidence intervals or pdfs and hence they are not directly comparable to observation based intervals (as e.g. in Otto et al)."

In other words no connection with reality. And this was expected:

"no consistency was to be expected in the first place."

There's your fraud; admitted

cohenite, you use fiction to try and debunk arguments, well done.

On another thread you acknowledged that climate change is happening, though you believe man is not the cause it being the sun.
Quote "That's right ant, climate change is happening; no one disputes that; the issue is what is causing it; my money's on the Sun, you and a decreasing band are saying it is human CO2 [which doesn't glow in the dark]."
Interesting that you should suggest the number of people who believe CO2 is a causation factor is decreasing; when, some major papers have been published this year acknowledging anthropogenic climate change. There has been a dearth of papers published in reputable journals from skeptical scientists.
Such an admission about the sun means that policies need to be developed in relation to low lying regions that are inhabited. Remember you stated "your money is on the sun"

When I gave a few references to show that the sun, if anything, should be cooling temperatures in its present phase, there had been no response, cohenite. Is it a case of the sun being an answer that seemed right at the time?
cohenite, from a reference you have provided a couple of times it is very clear that climate science is a political matter for you rather than a scientific one, something to do with the carbon tax. I also noted there had been requests for financial assistance to aid your site.

You were expecting consistency form cohenite ant? cohenite doesn’t worry too much about whether the arguments make sense. He is an ABC (anything but carbon) arguer.

cohenite some time back linked to the top 10 papers he considered proved AGW was false. The trouble was that each of those top 10 papers was claiming something entirely different i) the globe was not warming; ii) the globe was warming, but it was due to the sun; iii) the globe was warming, but it was due to water vapour; iv) the globe was warming but it was due to clouds; v) the globe was warming, but it had been warmer in the past; vi) the globe was cooling. If any one of these top 10 papers was correct, the other nine had to be wrong. It was like watching the White Queen in action.

"White Queen", eh? You, I presume, agro, are the Jabberwock.

Ant, don't be tedious; of course it's the sun. I linked to 73 papers on the Sun before; here is one again:

http://vixra.org/pdf/1108.0004v1.pdf

Seriously, read it and look closely at Figures 4-7.

AGW as an explanation for climate change is as dead as poor old Jabberwock.

Agronomist, yes, as I implied I think cohenite argues anything that seems right at the time.

But, the sun is not the best choice as the determinant of climate change that we are experiencing.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/07/the-lure-of-solar-forcing/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adAvYK1O-ic&feature=youtu.be

Gawd, you are still arguing about the wrong problem.
A long time back it was established that the AGW computer models are
using the too large totals for the amount of fossil fuels that are
available for burning.

AGW is just not going to happen, whether the theory is correct or not
is irrelevant.

Buzz, did you factor in the methane deposits in permafrost, methane and methane clathrates in the shallow areas of Polar waters,methane contained in retreating glaciers, and methane stored in the Gulf Stream? A paper released about a fortnight ago shows how climate change is happening in all regions of US.

cohenite, made a comment about sea ice in the Arctic in relation to 1974, in comparison to the later 70s.
A quote from nsidc:" Examination of the long-term satellite record dating back to 1979 and earlier records dating back to the 1950s indicate that spring melt seasons have started earlier and continued for a longer period throughout the year (Serreze et al. 2007). Even more disquieting, comparison of actual Arctic sea ice decline to IPCC AR4 projections show that observed ice loss is faster than any of the IPCC AR4 models have predicted (Stroeve et al. 2007)."
http://nsidc.org/cryosphere/sotc/sea_ice.html

No Ant, I did not factor anything in.
It does not matter, if the numbers are wrong the computer output is wrong.
GIGO !
There is not much point worrying about it, at least until or if the warming resumes.
Then it will be time to see if there is to be a race between melting
and fuel burning to see what ends first.
Most AGW advocates seem to be arguing about what will happen in fifty
years time when oil & coal will be too expensive to burn.

Bazz, if you had read the reference I gave you would realize that glaciologists in the Arctic are saying that the computer models created by the IPCC are behind what is happening. The levels of methane and methane clathrates have been calculated from observations, no computer models used.
"... of actual Arctic sea ice decline to IPCC AR4 projections show that observed ice loss is faster than any of the IPCC AR4 models have predicted (Stroeve et al. 2007)."

There have been a significant number of climate change papers published by scientists since the beginning of this year. Could climate deniers please direct us to as many quality, peer reviewed papers showing their case?

if evolution can be classed as 'science ' so can the fairies.

I did read the link, though not very deeply.
As far as the Antarctic is concerned I don't see the vast bulk of it
ever getting near melt point.
It would need a 20 deg rise in temperature, at least.
The point I was making is that the IPCC works on three amounts of fossil
fuel, but they have worked on the "resources" figures but the economic
"reserves" are a different matter altogether.
The reserves that can be mined or drilled and sold are already on the way out.
The fracking that is going on in the US is in the source rocks.
That is like the sucking noise you hear when getting to the bottom of a milkshake.

The source rocks is where the oil was made in times long gone and from where it
migrated upwards to where we originally found it.
Having already found all the "pools" of oil we are now sucking out
the last bits that are being held tight by the source rocks.
It is very expensive and is pushing up world prices.
We are already at peak for tight oil and only one field in the US is
doing well but will enter the big slide sometime around 2017.
It doesn't matter whether AGW is true or not !

That is why I am saying you are worrying about the wrong problem.

Hello to you all,
This link might be fruitful. I would be interested to see what those who post on this site make of this information from the Climate News Network.

No way back for West Antarctic Glaciers, by Tim Radford
http://climatenewsnetwork.us6.list-manage.com/track/click?u=6e13c74c17ec527c4be72d64f&id=781401f302&e=b500daf449

I guess that snowfall over the whole continent may offset ice melt.
Also ice not in contact with the ocean never get warm enough to melt
and that is the vast majority.

BTW how can anything be "West" in Antarctica.
The whole coast is the North Coast.

Earlier this year a huge 22k slab broke off the Antarctic shelf. What is not realized is that Antarctica is in a sense a desert in relation to the amount of snow falling.
The area where the glaciers are retreating is definitely called West Antarctica, Bazz.

An interesting clip about probabilities in relation to climate change.
Copy and paste

https://www.youtube.com/embed/y782Ceg-zlU?feature=player_embedded

Another news release from the ClimateNewsNetwork.

The global insurance industry looking at ways to reduce the effect of climate change

Insurance leaders pack climate punch
http://climatenewsnetwork.us6.list-manage2.com/track/click?u=6e13c74c17ec527c4be72d64f&id=cccb4177af&e=b500daf449

Re the Antarctic, here's a link with embedded video describing things
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2014/05/some-key-questions-answered-on-the-news-west-antarctic-glaciers-are-%E2%80%9Ccollapsing/

Look at one of the possibilities of the future...I don't know how much you know about the palo world of the past....but life is the short, we rent our time here and with this, well..I try and do something about it.....So its true!....The planet rules....now are we getting to grips?.....

Kat

Yes Brian the Insurance companies are in fact the true and ultimate
legislators in our world.
Most people think that the governments legislated to stop smoking in
offices, but it was the insurance companies that did that, using their
threat of removing workers compensation cover.

Likewise if Iran uttered their threat to close the Strait of Hormuz
all the US Navy could do would be to sit and twiddle their thumbs
because the insurance companies would close the Strait.

Ant, just because it is called West does not make it so.
It only has a North Coast.

Bazz, you stated that "...That is why I am saying you are worrying about the wrong problem."
Bazz it sounds like you are concentrating on peak oil, it is difficult to keep abreast of everything that is occurring, and so, I concentrate on climate change.
Already, epidemiological studies have associated some nasties that have happened through climate change; people dying from heat stroke and dengue fever is increasing.
Bushfires and flooding have been global matters creating huge costs. It is projected that costs will increase in the future.
cohenite has stated that climate change is happening, but not caused by man; where are his suggestions in relation to dealing with low lying regions which will be impacted by storm surges and ultimately by rising sea levels.

Well Anyway each to his own, but I will bet my worry will overpower
yours sometime between the end of this year and 2020 at the latest.
All the cheap stuff has gone and the majors are now reducing their
expenditure as exploration and development has become unsustainable.
The paramter to watch will be US interest rates, the sooner and
higher they rise the sooner the crunch will come as the Fracking
drillers will have their funds pulled.
The first link below is very applicable to us with our large
government and private debt.
That is why it is so important to get the debt down fast
When it hits the fan, people will be hoping for warm winters as it
will be too expensive to heat.

To get an idea what is happening have a read of this;
http://tinyurl.com/nwcgoov
and
http://www.resilience.org/stories/2014-05-23/toward-a-supply-constrained-world

There is a lot of information on the problem there and also some on global warming.

Latest news from the ClimateNewsNetwork

Greenland Ice may melt even faster

http://climatenewsnetwork.us6.list-manage1.com/track/click?u=6e13c74c17ec527c4be72d64f&id=3b0fc3a927&e=b500daf449

Interesting reading