UK Daily Mail: Is a mini ice age on the way? Scientists warn the Sun has ‘gone to sleep’ and say it could cause temperatures to plunge
…The rise and fall of the Hockey Stick and Mann-made global warming alarm – A Definitive Summary of Mann’s claims
Related Links:
Climategate’s Michael Mann finally getting recognition he deserves: Fellow warmist describes Mann’s latest papers as ‘a crock of sh*t’ – Mann fumes, calls his warmist colleague Wilson a “denier” — Then deletes Tweet – But other warmists have questioned Mann:
…‘The Invisible Judith Curry’: ‘A bona fide climate scientist tells US Senators we have no idea whether human-caused global warming will be a serious problem. The media doesn’t report it.’
…U.S. 2.04°F Below Normal – NOAA U.S. December 2013 – 98 Decembers Were Warmer
2.04°F Below Normal – NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) USA December 2013 – 98 Decembers Were Warmer
2010 UN IPCC scientist Ben Santer video: ‘Blogging is affecting me profoundly. Obviously, Mr. McIntyre has profoundly affected my life’
…Geologist Dr. Don Easterbrook: Cause of ‘the pause’ in global warming
…Flashback 1992 New York Times: ‘Scientists Suggest Global Warming Could Hasten the Next Ice Age’
…Geologist Dr. David Deming: ‘If the current cooling trend continues, the theory of global warming faces imminent extinction’
…Peer reviewed Magazine axed after Skeptic Paper Accepted
Via: The Climate Sceptics Party – http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2014/01/peer-reviewed-magazine-axed-after.html
Peer reviewed Magazine axed after Skeptic Paper Accepted.
Retraction Watch reports: (link)
“CLIMATE SKEPTIC” JOURNAL SHUTTERED FOLLOWING “MALPRACTICE” IN “NEPOTISTIC” REVIEWER SELECTIONS
The publisher of a journal apparently favored by climate change skeptics has shuttered it, saying that the editors changed the aim of the title and committed malpractice by using a peer reviewer selection process based on nepotism.
Oh, so it’s Sceptical Papers that cannot be reviewed by Nepotism? Actually, no papers should be reviewed by Nepotism; no papers should be reviewed by Pal Review rather than Peer Review.
And Yet!
It has been OK for years for the Alarmists to scratch each other’s backs whilst excluding any contrary opinion as the Climategate emails detailed: (link)
One of the most striking revelations to immediately emerge from the “climategate” scandal has been references to efforts by scientists espousing the human-caused warming theory to exclude contrary viewpoints from important scientific publications.
Dating back to 1996, the emails show that both U.S. and U.K. based scientists referred to any research offering alternate viewpoints as “disinformation”,“misinformation” or“crap” that needs to be kept out of the public domain.
The emails include deliberations amongst the scientists regarding efforts to make sure that reports from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change include their own research and exclude that of dissenting scientists.
In one of the emails, Phil Jones, the director of the East Anglia climate center, suggested to climate scientist Michael Mann of Penn State University We “will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
The ClimateGate CRU wanted NZ Scientist removed from an editorial position because he had the temerity to publish a Peer Reviewed Paper which was not in accord with the falsified CAGW hypothesis.
Instead we have discovered that this person has been using his position to promote ‘fringe’ views of various groups with which they are associated around the world. (link)
Fringe views? Why fringe, if they are Peer reviewed?
The emails will track how annoyance at the publication of a ‘contrary’ article in a journal develops into an attack on the editor, Chris de Freitas, an accomplished scientist. The attack includes a plot to see if they can get him sacked from his job at University of Auckland. Within the story, it is