Tuesday, January 21, 2014
Warmist proud of censoring dissent
In view of the great difficulty skeptics have at getting papers published in academic journals, one group of prominent skeptical scientists decided to set up their own journal. No problem, you would think. All sides of a debate should be aired.
But Warmists did not see it that way at all. They went all out to pressure the publisher (Copernicus) to ditch the journal -- which it did. Prominent Warmist James Annan is even proud of his efforts in that direction. He crows:
"Kudos to Copernicus for the rapid and decisive way in which they dealt with this problem. The problems at the journal were was first brought to my attention by ThingsBreak just last night, I emailed various people to express my concerns and the journal (which was already under close scrutiny by the publisher) was closed down within 24h."
The book burners are here! Such efforts by Warmists clearly have more in common with totalitarianism than with science and convey nothing so much as fear and panic. A commenter on his blog sums up the strange version of science behind such efforts:
"You've got to love climate science when you see episodes like this.
I think it is safe to say that in no other science do you see such overt power games played out like this.
It is clear that it is not just the retraction of a publication that is of primary importance here, it is the spin that comes off that retraction that is most important.
"Pour encourager les autres"
Since the ostensible reason given in the letter was that the publishers were "alarmed" at criticism of the IPCC it is obvious the lesson an observer should take is that any attempt to go out on a limb and "alarm" people must be shown to be wrong and is not to be encouraged.
You guys in climate must be so proud to have the best policed science that humanity has ever seen."
Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
John,
Would you please tell me what "falsifiable" means, and what it does not mean, in the context of science? I've always been fuzzy on this but fear I could get very different answers depending on who I ask. Thanks.
Post a Comment