This, incredibly, comes from the editor of Science magazine.
With respect to climate change, we have abruptly passed the tipping point in what until recently has been a tense political controversy. Why? Industry leaders, nongovernmental organizations, Al Gore, and public attention have all played a role. At the core, however, it’s about the relentless progress of science. As data accumulate, denialists retreat to the safety of the Wall Street Journal op-ed page or seek social relaxation with old pals from the tobacco lobby from whom they first learned to "teach the controversy." Meanwhile, political judgments are in, and the game is over. Indeed, on this page last week, a member of Parliament described how the European Union and his British colleagues are moving toward setting hard targets for greenhouse gas reductions.
Guess we can certainly expect him to be thoughtful and balanced in his evaluation of submissions for the magazine. "seek social relaxation with old pals from the tobacco lobby"?? My god that is over the top.
I think the scariest feature of this whole AGM con is the way so many people who one would have expected (or perhaps merely liked to expect) to remain objective have, instead, swallowed whole gallons of the Kool-Aid and become fully paid up members of the Church of Chicken Little. Scientific American, which I used to respect as a serious science magazine rather above the Discover and Popular Science level, apart from dumbing itself down a lot recently, went over to the dark side of AGW years ago.
The possible/probable imminent return of the Dalton Minimum has been getting quite a lot of play recently. Coupled with much more accumulating evidence that the wheels are coming off the AGW bandwagon one has to ask how much longer can the alarmists maintain the farce? And more importantly, how much damage can they inflict on the world’s economy before they are forced to admit defeat? God help us if we haven’t won the argument by election day and we get a Dem in the White House.
I think the scariest feature of this whole AGM con is the way so many people who one would have expected (or perhaps merely liked to expect) to remain objective have, instead, swallowed whole gallons of the Kool-Aid and become fully paid up members of the Church of Chicken Little. Scientific American, which I used to respect as a serious science magazine rather above the Discover and Popular Science level, apart from dumbing itself down a lot recently, went over to the dark side of AGW years ago.
The possible/probable imminent return of the Dalton Minimum has been getting quite a lot of play recently. Coupled with much more accumulating evidence that the wheels are coming off the AGW bandwagon one has to ask how much longer can the alarmists maintain the farce? And more importantly, how much damage can they inflict on the world’s economy before they are forced to admit defeat? God help us if we haven’t won the argument by election day and we get a Dem in the White House.
It is really a cutely turned phrase! Over the top? Can it be said that no PR firm was hired by tobacco companies & by polluting businesses? Can it be said that no scientist took money from tabacco firms & polluting businesses? Answers to the last two questions will answer the first question. Careful getting the answers tho. Science magazine probably already has these objective answers.
I found something even worse: http://www.sepp.org/Archive/NewSEPP/Censorship.htm
Dear Dr. Peiser,
After realizing that the basic points of your letter have already been widely dispersed over the internet, we have reluctantly decided that we cannot publish your letter. We appreciate your taking the time to revise it.
Best regards,
Etta Kavanagh
Associate Letters Editor
SCIENCE
Of course, it’s mostly internet sites like realclimate and desmogblog that continue to insist that Peiser’s arguments can be rejected BECAUSE it wasn’t published in Science.