Posted by: Grant | October 31, 2011

“Nature” Mag. Gets Very Unnatural.

Huge numbers of Greenies have got into science and flourish in the multibillion dollar research industry and Nature Magazine must pander to them.

So what do you do when you claim to be an “international weekly journal of science” and this comes along.

It is a claim that all the recent late century warming was all due to human forcings – patently absurd – and thus proves “Climate Change” is real.

The elephant in the room of course is the question “if it was all human-caused warming, why has it stopped? Human carbon dioxide is rising almost logarithmically, yet global temperatures have levelled out?

Nature | Editorial
Scientific climate
Nature 478,428(27 October 2011)doi:10.1038/478428a
Published online26 October 2011
Results confirming climate change are welcome, even when released before peer review.

Well, you start of with this trite pap…
“Global warming is really happening — really. There was no conspiracy or cover-up. Peer review did not fail and the scientists who have spent decades working out the best way to handle and process data turned out to know how to handle and process data after all. Thank you Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) study…. “

Then you qualify it with this…
” …There was predictable grumbling at the media coverage from within the scientific community, which saw it as publicity in lieu of peer review. Reporters are more than happy to cover the story now, while it’s sexy, but will they cover it later, when the results are confirmed, adjusted or corrected in accordance with a thorough vetting? The short answer is no, many of them will not. Barring an extraordinary reversal of message, the wave of press coverage is likely to be only a ripple when the papers are finally published. And this is what upsets the purists: the communication of science in this case comes before the scientific process has run its course.
Members of the Berkeley team revelled in their role as scientific renegades. Richard Muller, the physicist in charge, even told the BBC: “That is the way I practised science for decades; it was the way everyone practised it until some magazines — particularly Science and Nature — forbade it.”… “

And then you allow this rebuttal to stand on top of the “Comments” section just to cover your ass!

2011-10-26 04:03 AM
Report this comment #28687
Fred Singer said:
Dear Editors of Nature:

“What a curious editorial [p.428, Oct.26} ? and how revealing of yr bias!
 ?Results confirming climate change are welcome, even when released before peer review.?
 (emphasis added)
You imply that contrary results are not welcomed by Nature. But this has been obvious for many years…. “

” …But unlike the land surface, the atmosphere has shown no warming trend, either over land or over ocean — according to satellites and independent data from weather balloons. This indicates to me that there is something very wrong with the land surface data. And did you know that climate models, run on super-computers, all insist that the atmosphere must warm faster than the surface? And so does theory…. “

” …One last word: You evidently haven?t read the four scientific BEST papers, submitted for peer review. There, the Berkeley scientists disclaim knowing the cause of the temperature increase reported by their project. They conclude, however: ?The human component of global warming may be somewhat overestimated.? I commend them for their honesty and skepticism.”

QED – “Climate Change” is not and never was science – it is purely a political artifact.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: