Green Energy


The Science Is Settled: Editor of Journal Which Published AGW-Skeptical Article Resigns In Shame

 

From Ace:

Not that there was anything wrong with the article. It was peer-reviewed, checked, and followed protocols.
Unfortunately, the science it brought light to -- that more heat was being lost from the earth than climate "models" accounted for (thus meaning they are wrong as currently configured) -- harms the cause.
So the "guilty" editor resigned, apparently in protest of his own decision.
Wolfgang Wagner, the editor of new open access science journal Remote Sensing has resigned, re-opening the debate about the politicisation of science publishing. The August edition of Remote Sensing included a peer-reviewed paper by Spencer and Braswell [original PDF/370KB], citing satellite evidence showing that more heat energy is being lost to space than climate models account for.

Resigning is a very unusual step, notes Retraction Watch. The Spencer and Braswell paper has not been retracted, and in his statement [PDF/93KB] Wagner acknowledges protocols were followed. Standard operating procedure would be for critics to examine, and rebut if needed, the science in other journals.
But peer-reviewed publication in a journal has become a powerful propaganda weapon – the lead scientists who submit and review each others' papers are often chapter editors for the IPCC's assessment reports, the "bible" used by politicians to formulate climate policy. Several efforts where editors were pressured to keep dissenting views out of the prestigious journals have been documented.
"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" vowed Dr Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. Jones and Trenberth were both co-ordinating lead authors on the IPCC's Fourth Assessment report, published in 2007.
The science is settled, and here's how they did it: By simply censoring any contradictory science.




- The Climategate Whitewash Continues
From the Wall St. Journal: Global warming alarmists claim vindication after last year's data manipulation scandal. Don't believe the 'independent' reviews.Last November there was a world-wide outcry when a trove of emails were released...

- When The Germans Give Up On Agw You Really Do Know It's All Over…
From the Telegraph: No people on earth are more righteously Green than the Germans. They built the foundations and set the tone of the modern Green movement in, ahem, the 1930s. They invented the phrase Atomkraft Nein Danke. They were the first country...

- The Climategate Effect
It's dawning on me just how damaging ClimateGate really is. At first I thought it would come and go, a minor blip in the steadfast march toward Controlling Us All In The Name Of Saving Us All. But here's the thing. The more I think about ClimateGate,...

- Breaking: Britain's "met Office" Admits Cru Data Is Bad; Announces It Must Redo 160 Years Of Temperature Data
From Reliapundit the Astute Blogger: The Met Office plans to re-examine 160 years of temperature data after admitting that public confidence in the science on man-made global warming has been shattered by leaked e-mails. The new analysis of the data will...

- Wall Street Journal: "the Impression Left By The Climategate Emails Is That The Global Warming Game Has Been Rigged From The Start"
From the Wall Street Journal: The climatologists at the center of last week's leaked-email and document scandal have taken the line that it is all much ado about nothing. Yes, the wording of the some of their messages was unfortunate, but they insist...



Green Energy








.