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.
Why is this happening if the case for man-made global warming is conclusive? Is this how the famous "consensus" has been crafted, just ignoring or excluding dissenters like the Science review panel? It seems the peer review process isn't as inclusive and diverse as it could - or should - be.
Current Events » in reply to Nice try, people.
Wait, there's more!
The whole thread (56 posts)
- Global warming, a small update.
- To paraphrase Will Rogers...
- How does one become a science "authority"?
- BTW...
- ...a small warm pile...
- When other opinions are not allowed...
- Science versus dogma
- re: When other opinions are not allowed...
- Science isn't about "opinions". Especially those poorly supported by emperical evidence.
- When other opinions are not allowed...
- The Sky is falling! The sky is falling!
