Not "New Scientist", but "Non Scientist"

Joke publication

Joke publication

Jo Nova takes the global warming alarmist science mag to pieces:

It’s beyond silly. The mindless, irrelevant attacks go on. They attack Nigel Lawson for using a misleadingly short time (eight years) to argue that the world is not warming (which is exactly what the satellite data shows). Eight years is too short for New Scientist to announce a flat trend, but in every other article with a single flood, a single cyclone, or a single heat wave, one week is long enough for New Scientist to imply that global warming might be to blame. So a season of hurricanes is significant, but years of cooling is misleading. Righto. (And Amen).

They attack Christopher Monckton’s paper, not because they can summarize why it was in error, but because another group disagree, and there are some technicalities of whether it jumped through the right hoops to be called “peer review.” Attack the man and not the message eh? New Scientist stands up for the bureaucratic details of “peer review” (only some peers count), but they won’t stand up for the independent scientists, the whistleblowers who want access to data, just to check those “peer reviewed papers” didn’t turn out to be baseless frauds like the Hockey Stick.

We subscribers buy New Scientist in the hope it will impartially give us both sides of the story, in a summary form which is accurate… and the subscribers are rebelling. The comments below the article are 90% skeptics, 2% believers, and the rest are presumably so angry their’s were deleted.

Brilliant. Read it here.


  1. “Non Scientist” how creative, just love it!

%d bloggers like this: