Comments on: This is Science?? http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/01/this-is-scien-1.html Sat, 11 Feb 2012 16:51:39 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.3 By: littleblackduck http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/01/this-is-scien-1.html/comment-page-1#comment-371 littleblackduck Fri, 06 Jun 2008 14:47:48 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/01/this-is-scien-1.html#comment-371 <p>I found something even worse: http://www.sepp.org/Archive/NewSEPP/Censorship.htm</p> <p>Dear Dr. Peiser,</p> <p>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.</p> <p>Best regards,</p> <p>Etta Kavanagh<br /> Associate Letters Editor<br /> SCIENCE </p> <p>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. </p> 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.

]]> By: litesong http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/01/this-is-scien-1.html/comment-page-1#comment-370 litesong Tue, 22 Jan 2008 15:03:30 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/01/this-is-scien-1.html#comment-370 <p>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. </p> 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.

]]> By: Chris Wheal http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/01/this-is-scien-1.html/comment-page-1#comment-369 Chris Wheal Wed, 09 Jan 2008 00:39:31 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/01/this-is-scien-1.html#comment-369 <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> 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.

]]> By: Chris Wheal http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/01/this-is-scien-1.html/comment-page-1#comment-368 Chris Wheal Wed, 09 Jan 2008 00:39:02 +0000 http://climate-movie.com/wordpress/2008/01/this-is-scien-1.html#comment-368 <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> 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.

]]>