UK Times headline tomorrow: Scientists in cover-up of ‘damaging’ climate view

UK Times headline tomorrow: Scientists in cover-up of ‘damaging’ climate view – full article

Uh oh, another “climategate” like moment is upon us as the law of unintended consequences kicks in. As Dr. Roger Pielke put it:

Plus there is an editorial by Dr. Matt Ridley saying “This bullying of climate sceptics must end“.

Here is the front page of The Times for Friday May 16th, a link to the article follows

But what if one doesn’t really want to save planet Earth?

And really, isn’t planet Earth going to be here regardless of it’s climate? I mean to be perfectly honest, I don’t see planet Earth up and leaving anytime soon.

So in effect what is being discussed is we have 500 days to decide which scientist to believe in order to save people.

Which begs the question are people even worth saving?

I’m also a climate dissident or skeptic, and have been ostracized from the profession (in some cases, very actively by the AGW lobby) for about three decades. Yes, it has been going on that long. And I have told friends and family that I don’t expect the whole truth to come out in my lifetime (I am about to reach the retirement birthday of 65, rather ironic since maybe I will now be employable).

What you’ve heard on the outside is about half the story. The other half is one of self-sustaining delusion, rather than fraud. These AGW scientists are mainly victims of their own refusal to step back and admit that an earlier theory (which perhaps looked somewhat more plausible in the 1990s) has not been proven and cannot be proved. And this has led to an increasingly desperate search for a theory that will pass inspection and keep the research grants flowing, and perhaps more importantly, keep the progressive political narrative on life support.

In order to do this many have taken on the self-imposed task of brainwashing themselves and each other into believing that if you keep announcing theoretical ideas often enough (Greenland says this, Antarctica says that, more severe storms, blah blah) they will magically come true. Of course the problem is that none of these theories has been accurately portrayed nor can they come true by mere hope or magic potions and incantations.

That’s why the Swedish scientist defected. He must have noticed that weather patterns in his part of the world were increasingly different from the theoretical predictions and were not supportive of the sort of change that was expected. Sure, there’s change, always has been and always will be. Except perhaps in one area, and that’s my blacklisting and ostracism. Since I never made it into the profession because of my more obvious integrity, I can never receive rehabilitation. Canadians don’t do that, it’s too difficult to admit that many important people were wrong and essentially worthless. Better to imagine that I was instead.

Yeah...here is some data from the region....

Norway’s wheat production impacted by Climate Change Posted on October 5, 2013 by Guest Blogger

Guest essay by David Archibald

A correspondent in Oslo writes:

“The official view in Norway is in contrast to what the people experience because of cooling weather: Late spring gives flooding and avalanches when late snow-melting in the mountains. Water pipes freeze because of early and deep frost in the winter. Insect populations down 40% in 5 years because of cool and wet summers. This of cause is bad for pollination of fruit and berries.

The grain harvest in Norway this summer is down 18% from average the last 5 years, despite increase in area and better seeds. But officially it is getting warmer.”

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.