Journal editor "apologises" to warmist for publishing sceptical paper

Bullied by the warmists

It really does beggar belief. Climate science reduced to the level of playground bullies, with journal editors feeling they have to resign for publishing a paper which the “consensus boys” failed to exclude by their cosy pal-review process.

But not only that, we now read in an article on Daily Climate by Kevin Trenberth, John Abraham and Peter Gleick, the following astonishing statement:

Kevin Trenberth received a personal note of apology from both the editor-in-chief and the publisher of Remote Sensing. Wagner took this unusual and admirable step after becoming aware of the paper’s serious flaws. (source)

So because a warmist scientist considers the paper has flaws, a journal editor chooses to resign and apologise. Let’s turn the situation around for a moment: I would assume that Spencer and many other sceptical scientists would have a few issues with some of the consensus boys’ papers too, but I don’t see any editors rushing to resign because of that, do you? No, of course not.

Note that this has nothing to do with the worth of the scientific claims in the paper itself – this is all about procedure, and the integrity of the scientific process. The proper steps would be for Trenberth et al to rebut Spencer’s claims in a further, peer-reviewed, paper, or alternatively seek a retraction from the journal. Neither of these things has happened. A few comments on a blog is enough now – provided you’re on the warmist side.

Such is the power and influence wielded by the alarmist coterie, and the almost total politicisation of climate science, that almost without lifting a finger, a journal can be intimidated into providing a grovelling apology for daring to publish a paper which challenges the consensus. Truly jaw-dropping.

One has to ask, why are they so afraid? Is their CO2 driven construction so fragile that it cannot withstand a paper which, according to the alarmists, is total rubbish anyway? Why must they shut down scientific discourse, if the sceptics case is so weak, rather than let it be given the public ridicule it so obviously deserves? You can draw your own conclusions – I have mine.

There is much, much more – Roger Pielke Sr takes the whole thing apart here – read it all.

However, Maurizio Morabito, commenting on Pielke Jr’s blog, provides a cheering conclusion to the ridiculous extremes we have now reached:

“If “post-publication discussions of a scientific paper in the media or on blogs” can now “be used as the basis for subsequently re-evaluating the scientific merit of that paper within the scientific peer review process”, it just means that blogs and the media are now to be considered on-par with peer-review as ways to evaluate the scientific merit of a paper.

In other words, all people that support Wagner’s resignation are telling the world that the old complaint against skeptics “your article hasn’t been subjected to peer-review!” is not valid any longer. A blog or an interview will suffice.

Methinks only Gavin could come up with such a spectacular own goal.”


  1. Ken Ward via Facebook says:

    Global warming is like Santa Claus, you stop believing when your 11.

  2. Another Labor Failure …

  3. @Jezza – I don’t think we can blame Labor for this (about the only thing we can’t, however)

    • (tongue in cheek) can’t blame Labor? why ever not they are the ones pushing for media censorship!

  4. Can’t help myself … Another Climate Failure then … 🙂

  5. Andrew Mrozek via Facebook says:

    Why are so many “NON-Greenies” such chickens? Over there AND here in America? Say it LOUD: Global Warming is a LIE!
    Dang, that felt good!

  6. Good grief, are the Warmists that desperate that they have to try to intimidate everyone?

  7. Politics is a Blood Sport.

  8. Boyd Jahnke via Facebook says:

    What a sorry state of affairs the AGW fanatics are creating.

  9. Whatever happened to addressing the science itself, instead of making personal attacks?

    The peer review process is supposed to subject the research to scrutiny – not the researcher … but then again, we’re talking about ‘climate science’ so normal scientific courtesies don’t apply to the alarmists ‘pal’-review or ‘con’-sensus brigade!

  10. What bothers me is people like this Abrahams is the one who tried to destroy Monckton and he continually writes and produces videos that supposedly are counter claims about all of the sceptics views. If he is such a “super star” scientist when the hell does he ever do any of the scientific research that he might like to get peer reviewed by EVERYONE no just his mates?

  11. Forgive me Kevin for I have sinned , I have allowed doubt to be cast on our creed and broken the first commandment of warmism ,”Thou shalt not doubt AGW…..ever” / What can I do to make it up to you?

  12. Until all the major CO2 emitting countries agree to attend a special meeting, and then agree to take some specific action, Australia really ought to be continuing as normal, and NOT introiducing (or even openly discussing introducing) a Carbon Dioxide Tax.
    Just what makes Australia’s PM Julia Gillard believe that Australia has to lead the entire world on this ? Especially as the NORMAL annual increases in their levels of CO2 by China, let alone India, the USA and other countries, far exceed anything/everything Australia can possibly do to decrease the world level ? Even if we go b ack to living in caves and eating only what we can fossick for.


  1. […] Journal editor “apologises” to warmist for publishing sceptical paper […]

%d bloggers like this: