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?

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?

Do as asked and say which scientist (you did write in the singular) supports Bengrssons assertions about his paper?

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

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.

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/

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.