Frontiers editor throws Lew under a bus

Frontiers and Lew

Frontiers and Lew

Handbags at ten paces:

The authors of the retracted paper and their followers are doing the climate change crisis a tragic disservice by attacking people personally and saying that it is ethically ok to identify them in a scientific study. They made a monumental mistake, refused to fix it and that rightfully disqualified the study. The planet is headed for a cliff and the scientific evidence for climate change is way past a debate, in my opinion. Why even debate this with contrarians? If scientists think there is a debate, then why not debate this scientifically? Why help the ostriches of society (always are) keep their heads in the sand? Why not focus even more on the science of climate change? Why not develop potential scenarios so that society can get prepared? Is that not what scientists do? Does anyone really believe that a public lynching will help advance anything? Who comes off as the biggest nutter? Activism that abuses science as a weapon is just not helpful at a time of crisis. (link)

Ouch. And that’s from a warmist.

(h/t Bishop Hill)


  1. Reverted to kind, attack the critic even though you are wrong. N

  2. I was beginning to think that alarmist was actually being reasonable, and that there might be some hope in the world; then I read this:

  3. Re-putative Theory me think’s ;>)

  4. thingadonta says:

    Notice that he doesn’t actually question whether the whole idea of AGW is true in the first place.

    • That doesn’t matter to them it’s all PR for the UN nothing more nothing less ! ;>(

    • It’s like this LOOK RABBIT then they though that would fool us away and then job done because we wouldn’t focus on the 2nd release ? “SCIENTIST” yaa right dumbness’s we are watching and reading ;>)

  5. Old Sailor Man says:

    “The planet is headed for a cliff”. One presumes it is rolling.

  6. Alex Hamilton says:

    You are totally wrong in thinking that carbon dioxide is a primary cause of warming.

    Radiation in just a few spectral bands from carbon dioxide can never cause a warmer surface to increase in temperature. It can have a minuscule effect slowing down radiative cooling, but virtually all the slowing of surface cooling is by conduction at the surface-atmosphere boundary. The energy thus absorbed primarily by nitrogen and oxygen molecules subsequently finds its way by diffusion into water vapor, carbon dioxide and other radiating molecules, all of which act like holes in the nitrogen-oxygen blanket, radiating energy out of the atmosphere.

    There is no need for any warming by radiation anyway. It is now well-known and proven empirically that gravity forms a thermal gradient at the molecular level in the tropospheres of any planet with a significant atmosphere. On Earth the surface temperature would be a few degrees hotter if there were no water vapor, but it is cooler because water vapor and other radiating molecules (carbon dioxide included) help to cool the lower troposphere by radiating energy to higher altitudes and to space.

    That is what physics tells us. From my reading of what climatologists have assumed, I find their writings to be a complete travesty of physics.

%d bloggers like this: