More Transparent: Totalitarian Regimes or Climate Science?

[Shady]

Some interesting but unsurprising news out of Europe...

Are Climate Scientists Being Forced to Toe the Line?

After joining a controversial lobby group critical of climate change, meteorologist Lennart Bengtsson claims he was shunned by colleagues, leading him to quit. Some scientists complain pressure to conform to consensus opinion has become a serious hindrance in the field.

...

Climate researchers are now engaged in a debate about whether their science is being crippled by a compulsion to conform. They wonder if pressure to reach a consensus is too great. They ask if criticism is being suppressed. No less is at stake than the credibility of research evidence for climate change and the very question of whether climate research is still reliable.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/climate-scientists-mixed-over-controversy-surrounding-respected-researcher-a-971033.html

How serious are climate alarmists in enforcing their dogma? This is an actual conversation from PBS regarding the imprisoning of skeptics and/or polticians purposely ignoring the problem. What's their biggest concern? Cost and prison space!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RT1EP54Wejc

[TimG]

Climate researchers are now engaged in a debate about whether their science is being crippled by a compulsion to conform. They wonder if pressure to reach a consensus is too great. They ask if criticism is being suppressed.

This comes as no surprise to anyone who has been paying attention. The trouble is - too many people don't pay attention and treat climate change science as a religion that must not be questioned because climate scientists are infallible gods. Edited June 2, 2014 by TimG

[jbg]

Not much transparency with this kind of pretzel logic (link): In English, where's the warming?

http://web.science.unsw.edu.au/~matthew/nclimate2106-incl-SI.pdf

Observations of global average surface air temperature (SAT) show an unequivocal warming over the twentieth century1, however the overall trend has been interrupted by periods of weak warming or even cooling (Fig. 1). For example, warming largely stalled from the 1940s to the 1970s. Between 1975 and 2000 the overall upward SAT trend resumed, but it was not uniform, with a decade of accelerated warming from about 1975–1985 (ref. 2), as well as periods of little warming3. Since around 2001 a marked hiatus in global surface warming has occurred, raising questions about its cause, its likely duration and the implications for global climate change.

Decadal periods of minimal warming, or even cooling, interspersing decades of rapid warming, are not inconsistent with a long-term warming trend; indeed this characterizes the interplay between steadily increasing greenhouse gas forcing and internally generated climate variability. Factors other than internal variability, such as volcanoes and changes in solar radiation, can also drive cooler decades against the backdrop of ongoing warming. Indeed, hiatus decades are expected to punctuate future warming trends, even under scenarios of rapid global warming4,5. Mechanisms proposed to explain the most recent observed hiatus include increased ocean heat uptake2,3,6,7, the prolonged solar minimum4 and changes in atmospheric water vapour8 and aerosols9,10. The cool surface waters of the eastern Pacific have also been linked to the global temperature hiatus11 and consensus is building that the subsurface ocean, with its vast capacity for heat storage, is playing a significant role through enhanced heat uptake2,3,7,12,13. It remains unclear, however, where the bulk of anomalous ocean heat has occurred, with the Pacific2,3, Atlantic13,14 and Southern14–17 Oceans all potential candidates.

One notable aspect of the two most recent extended hiatus periods (1940–1975 and 2001–present), in contrast to periods of global SAT warming (1910–1940 and 1976–2000), is that they correspond closely to periods when the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation18–20 (IPO) has been in a negative phase (Fig. 1a). The IPO manifests as a low-frequency El Niño-like pattern of climate variability, with a warm tropical Pacific and weakened trade winds during its positive phase, and a cool tropical Pacific and strengthened winds during its negative phase. Recent analyses of climate model simulations suggest that hiatus decades are linked to negative phases of the IPO (refs 2,3,11). Here we examine the most recent hiatus in this context, particularly in relation to altered ocean dynamics and enhanced ocean heat uptake, and assess implications for the coming decades.

To examine the ongoing hiatus compared with a period of warming, we start by considering climatic trends over the past two decades, spanning the transition from a period of global surface warming in the 1990s to the post-2000 hiatus. During this time the Pacific trade winds increased substantially21 (Figs 1b and 2a), including both the Walker and Hadley circulation components, as reflected in anomalously high sea level pressure (SLP) centred at mid-latitudes (Fig. 2a). This trend in SLP and wind stress is consistent with the change in sign of the IPO in the late 1990s (ref. 22 and Fig. 1b), although the wind trends are even stronger and larger scale than those typically associated with the IPO, with the IPO regressed winds accounting for only approximately half magnitude of the observed change (Supplementary Fig. 1). The wind trend is thus probably due to both the recent change in the IPO (associated with a change in ENSO statistics23 and forced by internal variability, and/or external forcing such as volcanic emissions, solar irradiance and aerosols), along with other factors, such as recent rapid warming in the Indian Ocean24,25.

[WWWTT]

This comes as no surprise to anyone who has been paying attention. The trouble is - too many people don't pay attention and treat climate change science as a religion that must not be questioned because climate scientists are infallible gods.

Already beat you to it!

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/23286-the-new-religious-order-of-climate-changebelieve-or-deny/?hl=%2Bglobal+%2Bwarming+%2Breligion

Michael Hardner even went as far as to say I was starting a "troll" thread or something like that.

Guess he didn't like it when Charles Anthony wouldn't let him delete the thread.

WWWTT

[Michael Hardner]

Michael Hardner even went as far as to say I was starting a "troll" thread or something like that.

Guess he didn't like it when Charles Anthony wouldn't let him delete the thread.

WWWTT

Sorry, I don't see anything on that thread where I tell you to delete it. Maybe it's the same phantoms who are intimidating the scientists who are telling the "truth" about temperatures ?

[WWWTT]

Sorry, I don't see anything on that thread where I tell you to delete it. Maybe it's the same phantoms who are intimidating the scientists who are telling the "truth" about temperatures ?

Sorry, never was a phantom that said it was a "troll" thread! It was you!

WWWTT