Recently there was a leak of internal communications from the Hadley Climactic Research Center which sheds some interesting light on the politics of global warming.
“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that – take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board. What do others think?”
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”
“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”
The scientific method simply doesn’t work when opposing views are screened out.
Add this to the previous incidents where Radionsonde data was ‘corrected’ to create tropospheric warming where none existed (a crucial result predicted by significant AGW involving increased H2O forcing and tropospheric warming) and that the IPCC has refused to release their raw, uncorrected data. (Which completely undermines the process of scientific peer review.)
To be clear about several things;
- Yes, there’s still the issue of increased acidity of the earth’s oceans due to dissolved CO2 (H2CO4).
- Yes, the earth has experienced some warming. This has happened in history even without a human cause.
- A few parts per million increase in CO2 is not sufficient, in itself, to cause significant AGW. The assumption was always that increased heat from CO2 leads to increased atmospheric water vapor, which is a much stronger greenhouse gas. So far, this assumption is not panning out, which means theories need to be reconsidered.
- Yes, Al (“The center of the earth is millions of degrees!”) Gore has pointed out that atmospheric CO2 levels have historically tracked warming. However historically CO2 has been a lagging indicator by decades if not centuries, meaning that it wasn’t the first cause of the warming, but a result of it.