Talk-Polywell.org

Sourcewatch wrote: Outcome: Journal editor says "it should not have been published", resigns

In Sept 2011 Remote Sensing editor-in-chief Wolfgang Wagner resigned, saying that the paper should not have been published - that while "[peer review is] supposed to be able to identify fundamental methodological errors or false claims (…) the paper by Spencer and Braswell that was recently published in Remote Sensing is most likely problematic in both aspects and should therefore not have been published" - and noting that while "minority views are and should be welcomed in the scientific literature...[this] does not mean that long refuted arguments should be able to keep being published".

Jccarlton wrote:Old news:
Spencer got something published that the "team" didn't like and they smashed the editor.:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/02/b ... ell-paper/
Not something they haven't done before.

Baez wrote: 40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.

Schneibster wrote:

Jccarlton wrote:Old news:
Spencer got something published that the "team" didn't like and they smashed the editor.:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/02/b ... ell-paper/
Not something they haven't done before.

Baez wrote: 40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.

Next?

I mean, dude, a five-pointer is one thing but the forty-pointer ones are the Big Smack.

Jccarlton wrote:

Schneibster wrote:

Jccarlton wrote:Old news:
Spencer got something published that the "team" didn't like and they smashed the editor.:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/02/b ... ell-paper/
Not something they haven't done before.

Baez wrote: 40 points for claiming that the "scientific establishment" is engaged in a "conspiracy" to prevent your work from gaining its well-deserved fame, or suchlike.

Next?

I mean, dude, a five-pointer is one thing but the forty-pointer ones are the Big Smack.

I'm not claiming anything. Climategate was the gift that never stopped giving:
http://newzealandclimatechange.wordpres ... er-review/

Jccarlton wrote:You with people like that in charge, climate science has too much ego and no science.

Jccarlton wrote:If the consequences of the policies they advocate were not so serious it would be enough to make sure that you bought up popcorn stocks.

As Professor of Meteorology Dr. Richard Lindzen at MIT’s Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences observed, “The latest IPCC report truly sank to the level of hilarious incoherence – it is quite amazing to see the contortions the IPCC has to go through in order to keep the international climate agenda going.” The banner claim of this 2013 Summary for Policymakers (AR5) release is that “Human influence is extremely likely to be dominant cause of observed warming since the middle of the last century.”

As Mark Twain observed, “There are liars, darn liars, and statisticians.” Perhaps if he were alive today and followed political manipulations of science by the U.N.’s IPCC, he would add one more category…”demagogues”.

Lowering the scientific bar, AR5 even surpasses their former reports in statements ranging from patently dishonest, to artfully misleading. For example, here are but a few:

Diogenes wrote:The True Global Warming Crisis: The Fibs Underlying The Theory

As Professor of Meteorology Dr. Richard Lindzen