I'd like to say I told you so, but...
Leading scientific journals 'are censoring debate on global warming'
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.
So if that's true, why is it that the "truth" of Global Warming is continually forced down our throats? Why is it that we're told "Why, everyone agrees that global warming is real and it's all our faults!" on a daily basis?
Truth be told, we don't have the first clue about global warming. We know that things have warmed up, but beyond that we don't know why or how it all works.
So why is it that we're assaulted on a daily basis by misinformation, sensationalism, and scare tactics telling us that we're going to die or destroy the world in a few scant years? Because the Environmental movement has been taken over by agendas that are anti-business, anti- corporation and anti-globalization. Basically socialists, communists, and anarchists.
They use the environment to gather people into socialistic and communistic ideals, without telling them that that's exactly what they are talking these people into doing.
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".
Dr Peiser insists that he has kept his findings strictly confidential. "It is simply not true that they have appeared elsewhere already," he said.
A spokesman for Science said Dr Peiser's research had been rejected "for a variety of reasons", adding: "The information in the letter was not perceived to be novel."
Dr Peiser rejected this: "As the results from my analysis refuted the original claims, I believe Science has a duty to publish them."
Dr Peiser is not the only academic to have had work turned down which criticises the findings of Dr Oreskes's study. Prof Dennis Bray, of the GKSS National Research Centre in Geesthacht, Germany, submitted results from an international study showing that fewer than one in 10 climate scientists believed that climate change is principally caused by human activity.
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."
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."
Concern about bias within climate research has spread to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, whose findings are widely cited by those calling for drastic action on global warming.
In January, Dr Chris Landsea, an expert on hurricanes with the United States National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, resigned from the IPCC, claiming that it was "motivated by pre-conceived agendas" and was "scientifically unsound".
A spokesman for Science denied any bias against sceptics of man-made global warming. "You will find in our letters that there is a wide range of opinion," she said. "We certainly seek to cover dissenting views."
Dr Philip Campbell, the editor-in-chief of Nature, said that the journal was always happy to publish papers that go against perceived wisdom, as long as they are of acceptable scientific quality.
"The idea that we would conspire to suppress science that undermines the idea of anthropogenic climate change is both false and utterly naive about what makes journals thrive," he said.
Dr Peiser said the stifling of dissent and preoccupation with doomsday scenarios is bringing climate research into disrepute. "There is a fear that any doubt will be used by politicians to avoid action," he said. "But if political considerations dictate what gets published, it's all over for science."
The truth is we have very little evidence that shows that mankind has caused global warming. In fact there are literaly MOUNTAINS of information out there that you can find that points toward global climate change as being a cyclical and NATURAL process.
Is the world warming up? Yes. That much is known. But is it because of us or because of something else? The Hottest year on record was 1988. Of course that's a bit of a sensational claim since we weren't keeping all that many records on the temperature until just recently and for a relatively short period of time.
Here's what we know. Over the course of the life of this planet there have been NUMEROUS ice ages and NUMEROUS warming trends. Of those ice ages, mankind was only around for ONE of them, and at that time we didn't have much of any technology or green-house gas producing SUVs or jumbo jets.
If we didn't cause those GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGES, then what did?
We know that as the sun burns it's hydrogen fuel, it is slowly getting larger and HOTTER. Is the sun responsible for global warming?
We know that the advance and retreat of the polar ice caps is cyclical and is constantly changing. Could it be that there is an here-to fore unknown process that is behind the ice cycle?
We know that the Earth's magnetic poles occasionally flip, and that the Earth wobbles in it's rotation while orbiting the sun. Does a magnetic flip or a sudden wobble in the orbit cause these shifts?
We know that the orbit of the earth is elongated and not perfectly circular and that the earth is closer to the sun at some times than it is at others. Does this effect climate changes?
The truth is that there are MILLIONS of completely NATURAL things that cause these shifts in climate. For example, a single large volcanic eruption causes more green house gasses to be released into the atmosphere than we've released since the dawn of the automobile.
We know that a Global Climate Change was chiefly responsible for the extinction of the Dinosaurs. What? Did the Dinosaurs drive around between tar pits in giant SUVs that polluted the Earth? No, a massive asteroid impact caused massive earthquakes, mass volcanic eruptions, and thus, mass extinction of life though a global climate change.
Furthermore, we know that Mankind survived the last ice-age at a time where the most advanced tool we had was fire. If there is a global climate change, there is NOTHING we can do. No amount of green policy or protesting or sitting in drum circles is going to stop it. It's not a process created by man, it's a natural process that existed long before we ever crawled out of the primordial ooze.
You get the drift right? But wait there's more:
We now have a pretty good idea that Mars was once a very different planet than it is today and WE WERE NEVER THERE!
Is it more likely or less likely then that Mankind is responsible for Global Warming or that it may well be nothing more than the natural climate cycle?
The truth is that it's MOST PROBABLY nothing more than the cycle coming back around again. Is pollution and environmental policy important? Yes, but is the sky really falling and will it do any good for us to abandon the internal combustion engine, stop using fossil fuels, and use nothing but green friendly energy? Nope. If global climate is cyclical, as we have so much evidence for, then it doesn't matter if we all climb back into the stone ages, because there was an ice age back then too...
It's time for political bullshit to be put aside and publish the fact that we just DO NOT KNOW what causes global warming or global climate change. We just DO NOT KNOW that anything we are doing today has had any effect on that climate cycle. We just DO NOT KNOW what drives climate change. It's time we let the people of the planet know that we just DO NOT KNOW and that there is evidence on both sides of the argument and stop trying to scare people into accepting socialism or communism. How about we figure out what's happening and why and THEN see if there is really anything that we can do about it? Eh?
Recent Comments