It’s no secret that Dr. Sebastian Lüning’s outstanding, purely scientific Medieval Warming Period Map project has been held in very high regard within the science community.
It’s also no secret that some government-funded scientists and a slew of activists are not at all happy that it has created controversy and cast serious doubt over climate science. Indeed Lüning’s project has exposed that climate science has been a bit sloppy in its handling of the inconvenient Medieval Warm Period (MWP).
Recently Dr. Lüning entered his Medieval Warming Period Map project in a French-government sponsored contest, 100 Projects for the Climate, which has the aim of selecting and supporting the 100 best climate-related projects. Read background here and here.
To say the least, the project seemed to be generating a fair amount of voter activity.
Recently I got some mail from readers who had sought to cast their vote for Lüning’s project at the French-government operated website. They asked me to check the link because they had been getting the following error message:
I checked this over and there is nothing wrong with the link which allowed votes to be cast for Lüning’s project – except for the fact that the page now “doesn’t exist”. Many people (and we suspect perhaps too many) had already successfully cast their votes for the Medieval Warming Period Map. Was the link changed in the middle of the contest?
I’ve contacted Dr. Lüning about this and I’m hoping that he’ll post some news on this soon.
Too inconvenient?
Could this be the French government moving to shut out a project that is simply too hot and too inconvenient to handle?
One notes that the projects are about climate change and how to deal with it. It is truly mysterious that a quality project, such as Lüning’s, which relies solely on a huge base of scientific literature, would be disappeared for whatever reason.
This stinks to high heaven and we can only hope that project’s disappearance has to do with a technical glitch, and not some political reason rooted in irrationality (fear of alternative views), or worse. It just seems to be too foul that one of the surely very few SKEPTIC projects happens to be the one that has been affected in this way.
I’m very curious to find out how all of this will unfold. I have a feeling we have not heard the last of this.
Please make an update to this story, as soon as you find out for sure what has happened.
I voted for the project, and if it´s been removed I intent to make a complaint
Cheers Ole
I suspect many voted for it. The (democratic?) French government should respect the will of the voters and make sure the project gets back on the ballot and the votes reinstated. It really would be a shame if it was taken down because of “inconvenient science”. What kind of message does this send to the public?
This needs wider, mass exposure. It would add to the public indictment of dirty tricks being done now to intimidate or suppress critics of the climate alarmists, such as the story now coming out about Attorneys General of several states in the US harassing conservative think tanks and companies critical of the climate alarmism. The cockroaches are swarming out of the woodwork, as it were, and the public needs to be informed so the roaches can be (politically) exterminated. At the very least, I would expect Morano’s ClimateDepot would be interested in plugging this post there.
If this is true and it appears to be so, I would love to hear an AGW proponent’s views on the affair.
*Shrug*
Mais, wot else can you expect from fascists?
Warmists who claim their hypothesis regarding future climate is ‘settled science’ have shunned the scientific method. If a scientist seeks to predict the long-term state of a chaotic system, then new evidence should be welcome, in terms of refining existing predictive models.
But of course the warmists tactics are exactly the opposite of the scientific method, which is based on hypothesis, data-gathering, and counter-hypothesis. By suppressing studies that don’t fit in with their ‘facts’ and by threatening to lock up those that disagree, the warmists have adopted a methodology closer to religious fanaticism and prophesy than well-reasoned scientific method.
The Biblical prophets were RIGHT.
From DirkH
The Biblical prophets were RIGHT.
Every single one of them, without failure!!!
No communist prophets?
Communists don’t believe in prophets… they give things away for free, like Che t-shirts.
The French government has never been democratic. It pays lip service to its constitution of Fraternité, egalité, liberté but that’s all. They are deeply watermelon.
I cast two votes for Sebastian Luening’s project, and the eight votes left other projects that appeared useful, such as planting trees in Africa.
I had not vote left.
When I connected today, I saw that I have now two votes left, and my votes for Sebastian Luening’s project disappeared.
It is a scandalous scam.
THINK LIKE A BUREAUCRAT
This propaganda initiative is described as “…100 Projects for the Climate,…”
So. you see, the project must be “FOR” the climate.
As we read on the website:
“‘100 projects for climate’ aims to speed up the emergence of citizen-led initiatives to combat global warming.”
http://100projetspourleclimat.gouv.fr/en/about
By showing that any warming, real or imagined, is neither unusual or a threat, the Luening project doesn’t aim to “combat global warming,” and so it does no meet their “terms of reference” (remember, this is a government sponsored initiative).
Bottom line, they technically don’t even qualify to enter in the first place, so removing them is perfectly consistent with the stated goals of the initiative, however impossible they are.
Why hasn’t sod come by to explain all the good reasons for this happening?
“Why hasn’t sod come by to explain all the good reasons for this happening?”
As i said in the past, i am very critical on this map project.
Basically if we reduce the map to strong evidence that a real period was significantly warmer than TODAY, most marks will vanish.
@ClimateOtter
to paraphrase him – “If we were to reduce sod’s postings to only those that were true to reality, then sod would vanish.”
Dr. Lüning has written on his blog http://www.kaltesonne.de that the French Government has decided that the project full fills not the criteria for the contest.
http://kaltesonne.de/fragwurdige-regelanderung-mitten-im-spiel-franzosische-regierung-nimmt-kartierprojekt-zur-mittelalterlichen-warmeperiode-aus-dem-klimawettbewerb/
I have also vote for this project and I am very furious about this handling with my vote.
Of course it doesn’t ‘fulfil the criteria for the project’. It humiliates the entire AGW theory and thus humiliates the project and the people running it! We can’t have that.
It’s outrageous.
But sadly I’m not surprised that the project got removed.
It’s showing that there is not such thing as setteled science when it comes to the AGW hypotesis, it’s all a scam and the socialist GOV’s of the west can’t have their pet project disapproved.
I voted for the project and are utterly disappointed that the projects collection of real scientific work is being suppressed.
Jan-Ove
I hope this site and other sane sites will expose this misconduct. I’ll try to make a complaint to the French site on the removal of this project.
It’s outrageous.
But sadly I’m not surprised that the project got removed.
It’s showing that there is not such thing as setteled science when it comes to the AGW hypotesis, it’s all a scam and the socialist GOV’s of the west can’t have their pet project disapproved.
I voted for the project and are utterly disappointed that the projects collection of real scientific work is being suppressed.
Jan-Ove
The ministry of environment letter is in disagreement with the position of the French Academy of Sciences, as expressed here:
http://www.academie-sciences.fr/pdf/rapport/avis_031115.pdf
The academy of sciences concludes that all works contributing to improve the scientific knowledge on climate and how it evolves is fundamental.
(1) Poursuivre les travaux de recherche sur le climat, améliorer les éléments des simulations et réduire les incertitudes. Il est important de poursuivre les travaux de recherche amont sur le fonctionnement du climat,
tant sur les aspects observationnels, terrestres et spatiaux, que sur les mécanismes physiques et chimiques en jeu, et sur les modèles numériques qui couplent ces mécanismes pour réduire les incertitudes et améliorer les projections.
Il faudra aussi poursuivre les observations sur plusieurs décennies pour comprendre l’origine des fluctuations observées sur des périodes longues de la température globale de surface et du comportement de l’océan (circulation globale, variations thermiques, modes de variabilité superficielle, couplage océan-atmosphère).
Thanks for this info – will pass along to Dr. Lüning.
OH, NOW THAT’S SWEET! 🙂
Of course governments don’t answer to scientists. After all, not making sense is what bureaucrats often do best. Still, it’s nice to expose their pretentiousness.