[headstamp 2]

This is the mentality breeding on college universities worldwide with the academic left. If it doesn’t fit the narrative or conform with the current groupthink it doesn’t exist.

To the left, you win an argument by destroying the other differing argument or opinion. You criminalize the opposition.

[Cubs Fan]

the media doesn’t report obama scandals so it looks like there are none. Even though Obama’s is the most corrupt dictatorial presidency in US history.

[william clark]

Unsettling science.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

"The reality hasn’t been keeping up with the [computer] models."

That's a very strange turn of phrase indeed. The missing word is "political", as in "the political reality...".

When you consider that computer power/dollar has increased by at least 6 or orders of magnitude, since the whole IPCC thing began, it makes perfect sense. If you look back at the earlier versions of the IPCC reports, you'll be struck with how very crude and incomplete the models were. Even IPCC acknowledges that, in later reports. In part, that was due to the lack of input data -- but, it was also due to the inadequacies of the computer power available at the time. If it takes a modern supercomputer(say) one day to run a particular climate simulation -- it would have taken about 2,700 years to run that same model, on computers available 30 years ago. Hence, the early models were very crude. Too crude to justify the claims made for their predictive power. With a million times more computer power available to run them, modern models can have more variables, more resolution, more data. It should surprise no one that these models produce different results than the older, cruder models. The little graphic below shows how the resolution of climate models has changed over time.

[GOPJ]

Easy to see how the warmists keep that much vaunted ‘consensus’... What's next? Maybe they'll just take the people who disagree with them ‘out back’ and shoot them.

[exDemMom]

A scientist asked by the journal to assess the paper under the peer review process reportedly wrote: ‘It is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of “errors” and worse from the climate sceptics media side.

It is not unusual for scientific papers to be rejected following the peer-review process. But if this was the reason given--if the paper was not rejected on the basis of sound science--then this is troubling.

There have been many papers published which went against the scientific consensus of the time. Scientists have published papers describing evidence for new ideas that were so contrary to the accepted science of the time that they were called crackpots by their peers--yet they persisted with their research and kept publishing. In at least two cases that I can think of, the "crackpots" got Nobel prizes for their novel discoveries.

There are other papers, however, published in peer-reviewed journals or not, that are not worth the paper they are printed on. Sometimes, critical information was overlooked, or was only discovered later, that changed the interpretation of the data. Sometimes, the data itself is not very compelling or accurate. Science progresses not in huge leaps, but in fractions of a millimeter.

I can't tell from this article whether we are just seeing sour grapes, or whether this paper was rejected because it was solid but did not fit an agenda.

[lormand]

The climate hoaxers should be tried in a court for willful deception and theft.