Posted on 04/30/2005 6:17:16 PM PDT by bubman
Two of the world's leading scientific journals have come under fire from researchers for refusing to publish papers which challenge fashionable wisdom over global warming.
A British authority on natural catastrophes who disputed whether climatologists really agree that the Earth is getting warmer because of human activity, says his work was rejected by the American publication, Science, on the flimsiest of grounds.
A separate team of climate scientists, which was regularly used by Science and the journal Nature to review papers on the progress of global warming, said it was dropped after attempting to publish its own research which raised doubts over the issue.
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
Global Warming?
It must have been tough to be a, say, Copernicus or Galileo who challenged the status quo. I have to wonder if history will prove these censored scientists right.
April 30th in Denver and its snowing.
Please tell me how to induce some "global warming" in my neighborhood.
This is all part of the Kyoto blackmail scheme.
U.S. pays to shut down industry & transportation, so the poor countries can pollute with antique coal furnaces and wood burning.
"Global warming" is more junk science using closed models with biased simulations.
The globalist forces have control of the grant money.
Socialist liars don't just lie, they suppress all alternative opinion.
As with Dr Peiser's study, Science refused to publish his rebuttal. Prof Bray told The Telegraph: "They said it didn't fit with what they were intending to publish."This is the way socialist liars do "science".
Even if there is global warming, all you have to do to correct it is to reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the earth's surface, by about 1% or 2%. You can do that by
placing in orbit "artificial clouds".
These can be as thin as tinfoil, and 1500 miles above the earth, so they would never be seen.
(That's Dr. Edward Teller's concept, and it's a simple fix.
But it doesn't lend itself to the "crisis atmosphere"
that some on the left want to create.)
State of Fear
>Even if there is global warming, all you have to do to correct it is to reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the earth's surface, by about 1% or 2%.
According to the recent paper by James Hansen (pro warming NASA scientist), the number is about 0.85 W/m^2, which is less than 0.1%.
Who has the ping list...
Warmer temps mean more evaporation which mean's more clouds and less sunlight and then back to cooler temps?????
My own observation of this has been a journal I subscribe to, "The Skeptical Inquirer," which is dedicated to debunking parapsychology and other junk science. SI has run articles trashing both Lonborg and other dissenters on GW, based not on a dispassionate dissection of their data, but on their dissent from the "consensus." When SI rolled over for the liberals, I knew something was very rotten with the GW agenda.
I was introduced to one of these so called climatologists once and I can say that when we got around to discussing Kioto he was all giddy! I came flat out and said to a group of pseudo-intellectual wannbe's (isn't there any other kind?) hanging on his every word that this whole global warming was a lot of hot hair. You should hgave seen the looks I got. Of course the first rebuttal came from Mr Climate and he said "On what do you base your arguements? You do not have expertise on the subject!" I simply replied that if Global warming was a phenomena worthy of discussion, then why is it colder today then at the turn of the century? I followed that with asking them what type of vehicles they all drove. All of them drove either SUV's 4X4's or Beemers. They asked me what I drove and I replied Nothing! I take public transit! But when I'll buy my SUV, I will concern myself with Global Warming as well! The climatologists knew where I was coming from but the other nabobs had no clue to what I was alluding to. They simply presumed that I was not worthy of consideration because my rationale did not "fit in" with their presumed intellectial infallibility. I was merely pointing out that this whole Global warming illusion is predicated on social class! That it is an elitist arguement to keep those that are poor still poor. Because the entire rationale to the Kioto protocol is the indirect control of the means of production! Take it out of the hands of enterprising individuals and give it back to the state. I for one do not buy any of it!
Marxist theory (consensus) has now replaced scientific truth (experimental proof).
No tougher than today in my estimation. The thing which made being a scientist easier 100 years ago and on back was that the typical scientist was financially independant, either because he was under the patronage of some king or high-ranking noble or because he was a member of the house of lords himself. You didn't have this yuppy vision of science or these untouchable paradigms.
Oxymoron of the day?
"April 30th in Denver and its snowing. "
I'm up here in Longmont. Can you believe this crazy weather?
I would call being deemed a heretic and being excommunicated for saying the earth was not the center of the universe a pretty untouchable paradigm :). I think anyone who challenges the orthodoxy stands this risk. I am glad they are taking it.
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.