Global Warming Nutter 'scientists' Suppressing science

[michal1980]

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

longer clip

http://www.thegwpf.org/scientists-in-cover-up-of-damaging-climate-view/


The global warming experts aren't happy when research comes out that they may be wrong.

So do they investigate the new finds and study them more? Do they allow peer review of the new work? Nope. They just shut down the new data because it doesn't fit their political/scientific / monetary agenda.

Just to clarify, this paper wasn't published because

it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of ‘errors’ and worse from the climate sceptics media side.”

IE, the peers refused to publish it because it hurts there CO2 agenda.

Just becoming more and more clear, that the global warming science nutter agenda is all about blaming man, CO2 and the USA for global warming so they can line their pockets, vs actually finding out what is going on.

Heck they black list scientists that don't agree with them: forcing scientists to resign from work because they refuse to work with them unless they tow the company line.

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

 

[fskimospy]

Did you even read your own article? It was rejected BY peer review.

Climate change denier nuts are really some of the biggest nuts.

 

[michal1980]

Did you even read your own article? It was rejected BY peer review.

Climate change denier nuts are really some of the biggest nuts.

I did, did you read it?

It was rejected because it doesn't fit the current group think.


I figured you wouldn't get it. Your the one that always claims that the real money and science would be made disproving man made global warming. But how can you? If you find evidence challenge the group think the group rejects it.

This just proves peer review is bunk. Why? Because when the peers are all bought, they reject anything and everything they don't agree with.

From the article

A scientist asked by the journal to assess the paper under the peer review process wrote that he strongly advised against publishing it because it was “less than helpful”.

The paper was rejected simple because it did not fit what the peers were pushing. not on any scientific grounds.

 

[fskimospy]

You have no way of knowing that. Junk science is also not helpful to publish.

In your OP you whined that it wasn't put up for peer review because they were afraid of the science. Now that maybe you bothered to read your own article and found out it was rejected by peer review, you declare peer review to be crap.

In short, whatever it takes for you to keep believing in the religion of climate change denial.

 

[unokitty]

For many publications, peer review means that the editor sends the proposed paper to a handful of friends. As you would expect, the person that selects the reviewers controls what gets published.

Besides, its no longer global warming. Its not even climate change or climate disruption.

Now, its climate chaos! And as French foreign minister Laurent Fabius said at the State Department in Washington "we have 500 days to avoid climate chaos."

So, what does it matter if politicians like Obama raise your taxes so that they can distribute the money to the Third World in the name of Climate Justice?

Why should you care if the regulators raise the price of electricity that poor people have to pay?

The science is clear. If you don't send more money to the politicians now, we are all going to suffer climate chaos!

The only solution is to give the politicians more money!

I mean the politicians, they wouldn't lie to you. Would they?

LOL

Uno

 

[michal1980]

You have no way of knowing that. Junk science is also not helpful to publish.

In your OP you whined that it wasn't put up for peer review because they were afraid of the science. Now that maybe you bothered to read your own article and found out it was rejected by peer review, you declare peer review to be crap.

In short, whatever it takes for you to keep believing in the religion of climate change denial.

The times just wrote this story because there is nothing here.

Like I said, peer review is bunk, because the peers refuse to consider anything outside there bubble.

The didn't publish the story because it doesn't fit the peers agenda. That is fucked up. But your ok with that. Because then you can make the claim that there is no peer review work that question;s man made global warming.

in your world

Only peer reviewed work is valid.

But all/most of the peers are in the tank for man made global warming, so they reject any work that does not support their beliefs.

Therefor it is impossible that work that dismiss men's effect on climate is ever peer reviewed/accepted.

Therefor only work that supports manmade global warming is accepted.

Nice scam.



also stop building strawman. Did I deny global warming or climate change? no. so why are you attacking that point?

 

[fskimospy]

I love how you complained about how they didn't allow peer review in your OP and then declared peer review evil when you were told that they did.

You're an idiot and a troll.

 

[michal1980]

I love how you complained about how they didn't allow peer review in your OP and then declared peer review evil when you were told that they did.

You're an idiot and a troll.

The only idiot is you. The paper was not published because it didn't fit the agenda. Based on your orders here your OK with that.

You just operate like all the othesv don't like a different y POV or idea label the poster a troll

 

[Newell Steamer]

I don't know anything about how the scientific and research community works,.. but, I am still going to pass judgement and make comments, because I am a raging moron.

Herp-a-derp!!

 

[Jaskalas]

Did you even read your own article? It was rejected BY peer review.

Science has become rife with political allegiances and influences. One needs to look no further than the IPCC itself, statements for policymakers created by... policymakers.

Every so often the men on your side have a slip of the tongue and admit the politics of it all. Some bemoan the oil giants being involved. Of course if big oil can politicize this "science", your folks can do the same. In politics you silence your opposition. Just as Republicans would deny pro-life arguments, so too does your vaulted peer-review guard against political opponents. The authors here admit they were told as much.

The mask is being pulled back on consensus science.

 

[michal1980]

I don't know anything about how the scientific and research community works,.. but, I am still going to pass judgement and make comments, because I am a raging moron.

Herp-a-derp!!

whats you do? take a look in the mirror?

Did you read the articles? Or are you just a mindless personally attack drone?


The scientific community didn't publish the paper because it would hurt there narrative.


But according to you, even the times is now some fringe right wing climate change denying rag.

 

[K1052]

But all/most of the peers are in the tank for man made global warming, so they reject any work that does not support their beliefs.

A totally baseless allegation made by a person who doesn't understand how any of this works. You are only interested in twisting everything you see to fit your own wrong conclusions just like in every other climate change thread you post in.

 

[master_shake_]

stop rocking the boat! it's a fragile system.

one discovery that goes against the grain is like a stone thrown at a delicate house of cards balancing on a paint shaker.

al gore said it was getting hotter and he seems like stand up guy...

 

[michal1980]

A totally baseless allegation made by a person who doesn't understand how any of this works. You are only interested in twisting everything you see to fit your own wrong conclusions just like in every other climate change thread you post in.

LOL

how is it baseless?

The times proves what I am stating. Your just raging against the truth coming out about the clique these scientists have formed.

The 'peers' refused to publish the paper because it hurts there deeply held beliefs about global warming. It dared to challenge the status quo and they cant have that.

 

[Paul98]

LOL

how is it baseless?

The times proves what I am stating. Your just raging against the truth coming out about the clique these scientists have formed.

The 'peers' refused to publish the paper because it hurts there deeply held beliefs about global warming. It dared to challenge the status quo and they cant have that.

The only reason you believe it is true is because you already held that belief. I am sure you believe all the other articles about the severity of man made climate change.

 

[Paul98]

I find it funny that these idiots just gobble this shit up as soon as it "support's" their position.

You might want to do research on the subject you post

 

[fskimospy]

Science has become rife with political allegiances and influences. One needs to look no further than the IPCC itself, statements for policymakers created by... policymakers.

Every so often the men on your side have a slip of the tongue and admit the politics of it all. Some bemoan the oil giants being involved. Of course if big oil can politicize this "science", your folks can do the same. In politics you silence your opposition. Just as Republicans would deny pro-life arguments, so too does your vaulted peer-review guard against political opponents. The authors here admit they were told as much.

The mask is being pulled back on consensus science.

You don't actually believe this nonsense, do you? I mean in that other thread you were quoting work done for a group that cut its policy teeth on denying the link between secondhand smoke and cancer. Why are you letting yourself be duped by these people?

There are tons of journals out there. What you are saying is that there is basically a massive, worldwide conspiracy going on. That's ridiculous.

 

[Paul98]

You can read the actual response to the paper online and you can see just how shitty this article is.

 

[MixMasterTang]

LOL

how is it baseless?

The times proves what I am stating. Your just raging against the truth coming out about the clique these scientists have formed.

The 'peers' refused to publish the paper because it hurts there deeply held beliefs about global warming. It dared to challenge the status quo and they cant have that.

I'm not normally a grammar Nazi, but god damn son, taking anything you say seriously is almost impossible considering you haven't grasped 4th grade English.

 

[Paul98]

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

scroll down to the bottom and you can see that actual comments.

 

[Thebobo]

Well the story turns out to be bogus. Unless you count one scientist lol.

Murdoch-owned media hypes lone meteorologist's climate junk science
Absurd anti-science faux journalism flares up again - as usual, it's Big Oil that's set to benefit, not the public.

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...rdoch-media-hypes-lone-climate-denial-big-oil

.

 

[manimal]

Its funny how the ignorant are always the loudest.

 

[michal1980]

Well the story turns out to be bogus. Unless you count one scientist lol.

Murdoch-owned media hypes lone meteorologist's climate junk science
Absurd anti-science faux journalism flares up again - as usual, it's Big Oil that's set to benefit, not the public.

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...rdoch-media-hypes-lone-climate-denial-big-oil

.

figures this would play out this way.

They need to silence dissent.

 

[brycejones]

posting in a michal1980 crazy thread.

 

[artvscommerce]

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

longer clip

http://www.thegwpf.org/scientists-in-cover-up-of-damaging-climate-view/


The global warming experts aren't happy when research comes out that they may be wrong.

So do they investigate the new finds and study them more? Do they allow peer review of the new work? Nope. They just shut down the new data because it doesn't fit their political/scientific / monetary agenda.

Just to clarify, this paper wasn't published because


IE, the peers refused to publish it because it hurts there CO2 agenda.

Just becoming more and more clear, that the global warming science nutter agenda is all about blaming man, CO2 and the USA for global warming so they can line their pockets, vs actually finding out what is going on.

Heck they black list scientists that don't agree with them: forcing scientists to resign from work because they refuse to work with them unless they tow the company line.

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

So when are you planning to present your evidence for these very bold claims your making about the peer review process?