Michael Crichston will be hacked. The journals Science and Nature have been refusing to publish papers showing that climatologists are not agreed that global warming is occurring or that, if it is, it is caused by humans.
This follows the publication of a previous paper claiming that climatologists are in agreement on these points.
EXCERPT:
The controversy follows the publication by Science in December of a paper which claimed to have demonstrated complete agreement among climate experts, not only that global warming is a genuine phenomenon, but also that mankind is to blame.
The author of the research, Dr Naomi Oreskes, of the University of California, analysed almost 1,000 papers on the subject published since the early 1990s, and concluded that 75 per cent of them either explicitly or implicitly backed the consensus view, while none directly dissented from it.
Dr Oreskes’s study is now routinely cited by those demanding action on climate change, including the Royal Society and Prof Sir David King, the Government’s chief scientific adviser.
However, her unequivocal conclusions immediately raised suspicions among other academics, who knew of many papers that dissented from the pro-global warming line.
They included Dr Benny Peiser, a senior lecturer in the science faculty at Liverpool John Moores University, who decided to conduct his own analysis of the same set of 1,000 documents – and concluded that only one third backed the consensus view, while only one per cent did so explicitly.
Dr Peiser submitted his findings to Science in January, and was asked to edit his paper for publication – but has now been told that his results have been rejected on the grounds that the points he make had been "widely dispersed on the internet".
So the scientific discourse can be summarized like this:
SCIENCE: Climatologists agree! Humans clause global warming! Look at all these papers that say so!
CLIMATOLOGIST: Um, actually we don’t. Y’all have misread the papers.
SCIENCE REVIEWERS: Sorry, everybody knows about the point your making. No publication for you.
MORE:
Prof Roy Spencer, at the University of Alabama, a leading authority on satellite measurements of global temperatures, told The Telegraph: "It’s pretty clear that the editorial board of Science is more interested in promoting papers that are pro-global warming. It’s the news value that is most important."
He said that after his own team produced research casting doubt on man-made global warming, they were no longer sent papers by Nature and Science for review – despite being acknowledged as world leaders in the field.
As a result, says Prof Spencer, flawed research is finding its way into the leading journals, while attempts to get rebuttals published fail. "Other scientists have had the same experience", he said. "The journals have a small set of reviewers who are pro-global warming."
WHAT?!?! IDEOLOGICALLY DRIVEN SCIENCE?!?! FROM SECULARISTS?!?! Where’s all the outrage and comparison’s to “The Galileo Incident”? Are we saying that secular “religions” can influence science, but true religions better get there hands off scientists (even if we are reprimanding a believer of our religion for teaching religous errors i.e. the Bible is false etc.)? Interesting.
A good book about how humans, yes even primitive ones, cause ecological disasters is Jared Diamond’s “Collapse.”
I also tend to spell his name wrong, but I just double-checked, and it’s Michael Crichton.
It’s a conspiracy, OBVIOUSLY. Don’t know why…but…CONSPIRACY!!! (Points toward random government bodies especialy E.U. for having a non-god constitution)
More Global Warming, More Politicized Science
Update: This is an update to my previous article on the global warming, the lack of consensus among climate scientists about it, and the coverup of this lack in the scientific journals. A small but disorganized thank-you to Jimmy Akin for his blog pos…
I asked Peiser for the abstracts that supposedly rejected the consensus and have posted them here.
I think the result is extremely embarassing to Peiser, but judge for yourself.
If your article has been turned down, then find other outlets elsewhere. Period.
It means his work was shoddy, end of story.
More importantly, you people will continue to shout that we’re crying wolf right up until the end.
I’m glad I live in Canada and don’t have to deal with such asinine viewpoints. We’ll be just fine, thanks.
Of course, you are mostly opposed based on what appear to be religious grounds. I would suggest that the phenomena fits nicely with the idea of a Rapture. You should be happy.
I’d think you all in Canada would welcome a little global warming!
Peak Oil: Conditions in Canada may not yet be warm enough for your neurons to make adequate connections with each other, so here’s a bit of help:
This is a *Catholic* blog. Catholics do not believe that they will be whisked away from all the world’s problems by a Rapture. They believe that they will have to go through the problems that humans create on earth.
They also believe that the earth is a gift that must be stewarded properly.
Before you start trying to psychoanalyze the possible origins of others’ views, at least make sure that they belong to the right religion for the views you want to attribute to them.
Better yet, forget psychoanalyzing others and deal with the *evidence* they offer for their views.
It may be a while before Canada gets warm enough for that, though.