Posted by: climatewonk | March 22, 2008

How to overturn the scientific concensus on AGW — not

One of the hottest topics among “skeptics” concerned about the momentum that exists towards controlling AGHGs is how to convince the world that AGW is a dangerous hoax. One of the ways not to succeed is to rely on front groups, discredited scientists, bogus theories and publish work in non-science journals like Energy and Environment. To turn things around, skeptics have to publish credible science papers providing convincing alternative explanatons for warming in credible peer-reviewed science journals.

Credible is the operative concept. It’s a concept skeptics deniers don’t seem to understand. Correct that — they do understand it. The more cynical ones understand it all too well, and thus post their dreck in non-science journals or on blogs or websites, or hold bogus conferences, because they know credible journals and science bodies won’t put up with their fraud.

What this points to is a cynical attempt to manipulate the public, who have a drastically inadequate education in science, and who is unable to judge whether a paper is credible or whether a claim has any basis in fact. It’s shameful.

Deltoid outlines an interesting attempt to fool the public over at Energy and Environment. Apparently, the journal published yet another poor paper on CO2 concentrations that no reputable science journal editor would touch. Luckily, over at Rabett Run, there are links to the comments of real experts that trash the paper and E&E for publishing it.

From Rabett Run, some choice quotes:

It is shocking that this paper has been able to pass the journal’s referee system. “Energy and Environment” apparently has been unable to organise a proper peer review process for this paper, thereby discrediting the journal.

and:

The Beck article provides an interesting test case for E&E’s recently advertised willingness to serve as a forum for “skeptical analyses of global warming” (E&E mission statement, Dec. 2006). The result was the publication of a paper with serious conceptual oversights that would have been spotted by any reasonably qualified reviewer. Is it really the intent of E&E to provide a forum for laundering pseudo-science? I suggest that some clarification or review of the practice is appropriate

I love it. Not only do we get a bad paper published in an obviously biased journal by obviously inept editors, we get the real experts to completely discredit it and the journal!

My cup runneth over this morning.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: