01 May 2005
Scientific journals censoring debate on global warming'
NATURE and SCIENCE show envirowacko biases
Going along with previous comments by the Chief, the London Telegraph reports problems with the system of scientific peer review in what are arguably the two most prestigious general subject scientific journals, the UK's NATURE, and the USA's SCIENCE.
It is becoming more and more clear that there has been a pre-determined decision to ape the NY Times so that "all the news that fits, we print". More specifically, refutation of the currently propounded orthodoxy of human-caused global warming is as verboten as was Galileo's exposition of the Copernican solar system in the 16th century.
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.
It would seem that in spite of nearly 400 years of scientific progress, in the final analysis, the powers of scientific orthodoxy are just as unforgiving and intolerant of opposition as the religious authority was then. At least now there is only professional ostracism of their opponents as their ultimate sanction, instead of burning at the stake.
Going along with previous comments by the Chief, the London Telegraph reports problems with the system of scientific peer review in what are arguably the two most prestigious general subject scientific journals, the UK's NATURE, and the USA's SCIENCE.
It is becoming more and more clear that there has been a pre-determined decision to ape the NY Times so that "all the news that fits, we print". More specifically, refutation of the currently propounded orthodoxy of human-caused global warming is as verboten as was Galileo's exposition of the Copernican solar system in the 16th century.
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.
It would seem that in spite of nearly 400 years of scientific progress, in the final analysis, the powers of scientific orthodoxy are just as unforgiving and intolerant of opposition as the religious authority was then. At least now there is only professional ostracism of their opponents as their ultimate sanction, instead of burning at the stake.
