uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) (uk.sci.weather) For the discussion of daily weather events, chiefly affecting the UK and adjacent parts of Europe, both past and predicted. The discussion is open to all, but contributions on a practical scientific level are encouraged.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11   Report Post  
Old May 17th 14, 08:44 PM posted to uk.sci.weather
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by Weather-Banter: Feb 2005
Posts: 6,777
Default Prof.Bengtsson

On Saturday, 17 May 2014 19:34:52 UTC+1, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:

That's from an actual climate scientist.


Why not get the bloody submission from the other actual climate scientist if there is any such thing or reason to believe a word from any of the buggers?



  #12   Report Post  
Old May 17th 14, 09:31 PM posted to uk.sci.weather
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by Weather-Banter: Dec 2006
Posts: 6,158
Default Prof.Bengtsson

On Saturday, 17 May 2014 19:48:03 UTC+1, Stephen Davenport wrote:
On Saturday, May 17, 2014 7:21:31 PM UTC+1, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:





Yes that's why other scientist are supporting him; jesus you lot are brainwashed.






Well, I'll ignore your usual inaccurate and desperate abuse and argumentum ad hominem (whoever "you lot" are). But "scientist" in the singular? Which scientist?





You feel you need to defend the 'science' well AGW is the most hijacked science in human history all you are defending in stuff that AGW is based upon like the 'hockey stick for example which when all is said and done is dodgy selected tree data.






===



The science speaks for itself, to anyone who understands it. Which you, a priori, do not.



Stephen.


Stephen oh wise one would you please do me the favour of telling me what the science says?
  #13   Report Post  
Old May 17th 14, 11:59 PM posted to uk.sci.weather
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by Weather-Banter: Mar 2008
Posts: 10,601
Default Prof.Bengtsson

Do as asked and say which scientist (you did write in the singular) supports Bengrssons assertions about his paper?
  #14   Report Post  
Old May 18th 14, 08:25 AM posted to uk.sci.weather
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by Weather-Banter: Nov 2003
Posts: 935
Default Prof.Bengtsson

On 17/05/2014 18:57, Tudor Hughes wrote:
On Saturday, 17 May 2014 18:11:23 UTC+1, Ian Bingham wrote:


Prof.Bengtsson of Reading University put under "enormous pressure" for daring to say that Global Warming may have been exaggerated. I don't carry a brief for either camp and keep an open mind, but that really is deplorable. Do we have a scientific community motivated by the spirit of scientific enquiry, or do we have The Spanish Inquisition? His paper was rejected because the editor said it contained errors, but that sounds mighty like a rationalization to me; he just expressed an opinion that was out of favour. The scientific community has sunk pretty low when that sort of thing can happen.


Ian Bingham, Inchmarlo, Aberdeenshire.

Did it contain errors? Did Prof Bengtsson say that Global Warming had been exaggerated or that the anthropogenic contribution had been exaggerated? Where does this information come from?

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.


Apparently it did contain errors and lacked novelty. The Times article
contained lots of errors, selective quoting to mislead and innuendos
against the IOP. The IOP have therefore issued a rebuttal of the Times
politically motivated attack on the integrity of the peer review system:

http://ioppublishing.org/newsDetails...y-in-the-times

The entire review comments are online as a result of this debacle. Read
them and make up your own mind about who is politically motivated.

This has opened a can of worms as anonymous reviewers do not normally
expect to see their comments given to anyone other than the authors of
the paper and the editors of the journal.

The paper was basically a rehash of someone elses idea filtered with
rose tinted glasses to fit a political agenda. He might be right but if
he is then he will have to make his case a lot more convincingly to the
scientific community. If he feels *so* hard done by he could always
publish the existing preprint online and let anyone who wants to see it.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown
  #15   Report Post  
Old May 18th 14, 09:10 AM posted to uk.sci.weather
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by Weather-Banter: Feb 2005
Posts: 6,777
Default Prof.Bengtsson

On Sunday, 18 May 2014 08:25:14 UTC+1, someone's left foot wrote:
On 17/05/2014 18:57, Tudor Hughes wrote:

On Saturday, 17 May 2014 18:11:23 UTC+1, Ian Bingham wrote:




Prof.Bengtsson of Reading University put under "enormous pressure" for daring to say that Global Warming may have been exaggerated. I don't carry a brief for either camp and keep an open mind, but that really is deplorable. Do we have a scientific community motivated by the spirit of scientific enquiry, or do we have The Spanish Inquisition? His paper was rejected because the editor said it contained errors, but that sounds mighty like a rationalization to me; he just expressed an opinion that was out of favour. The scientific community has sunk pretty low when that sort of thing can happen.




Ian Bingham, Inchmarlo, Aberdeenshire.




Did it contain errors? Did Prof Bengtsson say that Global Warming had been exaggerated or that the anthropogenic contribution had been exaggerated? Where does this information come from?




Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.




Apparently it did contain errors and lacked novelty. The Times article

contained lots of errors, selective quoting to mislead and innuendos

against the IOP. The IOP have therefore issued a rebuttal of the Times

politically motivated attack on the integrity of the peer review system:



http://ioppublishing.org/newsDetails...y-in-the-times



The entire review comments are online as a result of this debacle. Read

them and make up your own mind about who is politically motivated.



This has opened a can of worms as anonymous reviewers do not normally

expect to see their comments given to anyone other than the authors of

the paper and the editors of the journal.


So?

What kind of worms are those. Night crawlers or trash digesters?

The paper was basically a rehash of someone else's idea filtered with

rose tinted glasses to fit a political agenda. He might be right but if

he is then he will have to make his case a lot more convincingly to the

scientific community. If he feels *so* hard done by he could always

publish the existing preprint online and let anyone who wants to see it.



--

Regards,
Dawlish


Let's get it straight shall we?

I know you don't like to consider things too clearly but isn't it a fact that he might be right and has made his case no less convincing than that of the so called scientific community.



  #16   Report Post  
Old May 18th 14, 03:21 PM posted to uk.sci.weather
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by Weather-Banter: Dec 2006
Posts: 6,158
Default Prof.Bengtsson

On Sunday, 18 May 2014 08:25:14 UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:
On 17/05/2014 18:57, Tudor Hughes wrote:

On Saturday, 17 May 2014 18:11:23 UTC+1, Ian Bingham wrote:




Prof.Bengtsson of Reading University put under "enormous pressure" for daring to say that Global Warming may have been exaggerated. I don't carry a brief for either camp and keep an open mind, but that really is deplorable. Do we have a scientific community motivated by the spirit of scientific enquiry, or do we have The Spanish Inquisition? His paper was rejected because the editor said it contained errors, but that sounds mighty like a rationalization to me; he just expressed an opinion that was out of favour. The scientific community has sunk pretty low when that sort of thing can happen.




Ian Bingham, Inchmarlo, Aberdeenshire.




Did it contain errors? Did Prof Bengtsson say that Global Warming had been exaggerated or that the anthropogenic contribution had been exaggerated? Where does this information come from?




Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.




Apparently it did contain errors and lacked novelty. The Times article

contained lots of errors, selective quoting to mislead and innuendos

against the IOP. The IOP have therefore issued a rebuttal of the Times

politically motivated attack on the integrity of the peer review system:



http://ioppublishing.org/newsDetails...y-in-the-times



The entire review comments are online as a result of this debacle. Read

them and make up your own mind about who is politically motivated.



This has opened a can of worms as anonymous reviewers do not normally

expect to see their comments given to anyone other than the authors of

the paper and the editors of the journal.



The paper was basically a rehash of someone elses idea filtered with

rose tinted glasses to fit a political agenda. He might be right but if

he is then he will have to make his case a lot more convincingly to the

scientific community. If he feels *so* hard done by he could always

publish the existing preprint online and let anyone who wants to see it.



--

Regards,

Martin Brown


I'm sure you and they are right Martin/ I mean just look at Prof. Bengstssom's track record why you make him look like a amateurish novice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lennart_Bengtsson


No, it's good the see the biggest money making gravy train in the history of science (unless you disagree of course)casting their untainted objective eyes over all and sundry and not letting someone's impeachable past get in the way of their latest rubbish.

http://judithcurry.com/2014/05/14/le...from-the-gwpf/
  #17   Report Post  
Old May 18th 14, 04:29 PM posted to uk.sci.weather
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by Weather-Banter: Mar 2008
Posts: 10,601
Default Prof.Bengtsson

On Sunday, May 18, 2014 3:21:23 PM UTC+1, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
On Sunday, 18 May 2014 08:25:14 UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:

On 17/05/2014 18:57, Tudor Hughes wrote:




On Saturday, 17 May 2014 18:11:23 UTC+1, Ian Bingham wrote:








Prof.Bengtsson of Reading University put under "enormous pressure" for daring to say that Global Warming may have been exaggerated. I don't carry a brief for either camp and keep an open mind, but that really is deplorable. Do we have a scientific community motivated by the spirit of scientific enquiry, or do we have The Spanish Inquisition? His paper was rejected because the editor said it contained errors, but that sounds mighty like a rationalization to me; he just expressed an opinion that was out of favour. The scientific community has sunk pretty low when that sort of thing can happen.








Ian Bingham, Inchmarlo, Aberdeenshire.








Did it contain errors? Did Prof Bengtsson say that Global Warming had been exaggerated or that the anthropogenic contribution had been exaggerated? Where does this information come from?








Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.








Apparently it did contain errors and lacked novelty. The Times article




contained lots of errors, selective quoting to mislead and innuendos




against the IOP. The IOP have therefore issued a rebuttal of the Times




politically motivated attack on the integrity of the peer review system:








http://ioppublishing.org/newsDetails...y-in-the-times








The entire review comments are online as a result of this debacle. Read




them and make up your own mind about who is politically motivated.








This has opened a can of worms as anonymous reviewers do not normally




expect to see their comments given to anyone other than the authors of




the paper and the editors of the journal.








The paper was basically a rehash of someone elses idea filtered with




rose tinted glasses to fit a political agenda. He might be right but if




he is then he will have to make his case a lot more convincingly to the




scientific community. If he feels *so* hard done by he could always




publish the existing preprint online and let anyone who wants to see it..








--




Regards,




Martin Brown




I'm sure you and they are right Martin/ I mean just look at Prof. Bengstssom's track record why you make him look like a amateurish novice.


Hardly. Bengtsson, who you have never heard of before you stumbled across this thread and used Wiki, to find something so you could try to look intelligent (it failed, of course) has made himself look like a poor amateur. Read the review comments and see. I agree completely within Martin. Bengstssom's hubris at being turned down and complaining about it in this way, instead of going back to the drawing board and improving his research, has done his scientific colleagues no favours at all.

I do hope, when he is next asked to be a reviewer, that he publishes his own comments to compensate. Bet he doesn't.


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
UK's leading statistician slams ice hockey stick graph as"exaggerated" - Prof. David Hand Dawlish sci.geo.meteorology (Meteorology) 0 April 20th 10 10:08 AM
Prof. Lindzen of MIT is a big deal for climate science Androcles[_11_] sci.geo.meteorology (Meteorology) 2 April 14th 10 11:34 PM
Prof. Lindzen of MIT is a big deal for climate science Martin Brown uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) 0 April 13th 10 11:49 AM
Interview with Prof. Lovelock Tim uk.sci.weather (UK Weather) 0 March 30th 10 04:12 PM
Prof. David Karoly Talks Sense on Aussie Bushfire factors ... Fran[_2_] sci.geo.meteorology (Meteorology) 0 February 18th 09 01:00 AM


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:13 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 Weather Banter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Weather"

 

Copyright © 2017