• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Suppression of Skeptical Research by "Consensus" Climate Science

Jack Hays

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,342
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
The suppression of climate science skepticism was infamously exposed in Climategate. Now we have another example of the work of the Consensus Enforcement Squad. A skeptical researcher's work is mischaracterized, a strawman is created, and the strawman is duly refuted. Then the skeptical researcher is denied the opportunity to rebut. Classic "consensus" science.


AGW Gatekeepers Censor The CO2-Climate Debate By Refusing To Publish Author’s Response To Criticism

A 2017 peer-reviewed paper authored by physicist Dr. Hermann Harde drew considerable response upon its publication in the journal Global and Planetary Change. Harde’s conclusion that less than 15% of the increase in CO2 concentration since the 19th century could be attributed to anthropogenic emissions was deemed unacceptable by gatekeepers of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) viewpoint. A…
Continue reading →

[FONT=&quot]A 2017 peer-reviewed paper authored by physicist Dr. Hermann Harde drew considerable response upon its publication in the journal Global and Planetary Change. Harde’s conclusion that less than 15% of the increase in CO2 concentration since the 19th century could be attributed to anthropogenic emissions was deemed unacceptable by gatekeepers of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) viewpoint. A critical reply to the paper was consequently published, but it included assumptive errors and misrepresentations of the original points. Harde’s exhaustive reply to the criticism has been refused publication, which has effectively silenced scientific debate on this salient topic.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]We have yet another example of AGW advocates like Gavin Schmidt running away from real scientific debates with skeptics.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]After receiving appeal-to-authority pressure from Gavin Schmidt and other activists at RealClimate.org, the overseers of the Elsevier journal Global and Planetary Change have refused to allow the public to read the exhaustive response to criticisms levied against a peer-reviewed paper they originally agreed to publish. . . .[/FONT]

 
Harde’s conclusion that less than 15% of the increase in CO2 concentration since the 19th century could be attributed to anthropogenic emissions
Click to expand...

Let me guess. "By emissions, I mean just the scooters. Not cars, or boats, or agriculture or industry. Just the scooters."

His claim is stupid on its face and an embarrassment to anyone associated with it.
 
Suppressing any type of science is anti-science.

Whether or not climate skeptic scientists do or don't have a leg to stand on -- they should never be suppressed. That's like when Galileo's science was suppressed because the government (run by the Church) claimed the earth could not possibly be round.

The thing about science is that it's in a constant state of flux. It's never settled and it can always be refined or improved.

I hope this doesn't portend a return to the Dark Ages of science.
 
ecofarm said:
Let me guess. "By emissions, I mean just the scooters. Not cars, or boats, or agriculture or industry. Just the scooters."

His claim is stupid on its face and an embarrassment to anyone associated with it.
Click to expand...

It might be stupid, but we're talking about suppressing science, and that should never happen.
 
HowardBThiname said:
It might be stupid, but we're talking about suppressing science, and that should never happen.
Click to expand...


No one can be blamed for disassociating with his ludicrous claim. And it is ludicrous. Very.

He can publish whatever he wants on denier CT blogs and other places.
 
ecofarm said:
Let me guess. "By emissions, I mean just the scooters. Not cars, or boats, or agriculture or industry. Just the scooters."

His claim is stupid on its face and an embarrassment to anyone associated with it.
Click to expand...

The only thing stupid is opining without looking at the evidence.
 
ecofarm said:
No one can be blamed for disassociating with his ludicrous claim. And it is ludicrous. Very.

He can publish whatever he wants on denier CT blogs and other places.
Click to expand...

Thus do the defenders of a dying paradigm rush to its defense.
 
Jack Hays said:
The only thing stupid is opining without looking at the evidence.
Click to expand...

My educated guess is over 50% easy. His claim is stupid, very stupid. It's attention seeking for his 15 minutes. And someone said, "no, no 15 minutes for you on me" and disassociated. They are completely justified in disassociating with lunacy. He can publish elsewhere.
 
ecofarm said:
No one can be blamed for disassociating with his ludicrous claim. And it is ludicrous. Very.

He can publish whatever he wants on denier CT blogs and other places.
Click to expand...

If it's peer-reviewed and it meets the criteria of the journal, there's no real (intellectual) reason not to run it. If anything, it stimulates discussion and scientists who disagree set about to disprove it. That's the way science should work.
 
HowardBThiname said:
If it's peer-reviewed and it meets the criteria of the journal, there's no real (intellectual) reason not to run it. If anything, it stimulates discussion and scientists who disagree set about to disprove it. That's the way science should work.
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand what any of that means or how any of that works.

You're buying a CT victim narrative. You might as well be defending the lamenting of people ignoring "eye witness testimony" that a missile hit the Pentagon.
 
ecofarm said:
My educated guess is over 50% easy. His claim is stupid, very stupid. It's attention seeking for his 15 minutes. And someone said, "no, no 15 minutes for you on me" and disassociated. They are completely justified in disassociating with lunacy. He can publish elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Peer-reviewed science merits more than your hand-waving dismissal. And the author deserves to have his rebuttal see the light of day.
 
Jack Hays said:
Peer-reviewed science merits more than your hand-waving dismissal. And the author deserves to have his rebuttal see the light of day.
Click to expand...

Try the NYT editorial section. Or maybe Wikipedia. The journal has had enough of him (ab)using them for his 15. Right to association.
 
ecofarm said:
Try the NYT editorial section. Or maybe Wikipedia. The journal has had enough of him using them for his 15. Right to association.
Click to expand...

The Consensus Enforcement Squad strikes again. Thus is a dying paradigm defended.
 
Jack Hays said:
The Consensus Enforcement Squad strikes again. Thus is a dying paradigm defended.
Click to expand...

A private journal was abused by someone seeking their 15. The journal, justifiably, withdrew association.

Your position is rapey because the journal owes him nothing and was being abused, and it's openly conspiratorial.
 
ecofarm said:
A private journal was abused by someone seeking their 15. The journal, justifiably, withdrew association.

Your position is rapey because the journal owes him nothing, and it's openly conspiratorial.
Click to expand...

His submission was peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. The journal accepted a critical response and therefore, in fact, owes the author they accepted an opportunity to reply. Any other outcome is simply suppression.
 
Jack Hays said:
His submission was peer-reviewed and accepted for publication. The journal accepted a critical response and therefore, in fact, owes the author they accepted an opportunity to reply. Any other outcome is simply suppression.
Click to expand...

He has no right to continue abusing the journal. He can publish his 15 minutes of BS somewhere else.
 
ecofarm said:
He has no right to continue abusing the journal. He can publish his 15 minutes of BS somewhere else.
Click to expand...

Submission of a peer-reviewed paper which was accepted for publication is in no way "abuse." What is abuse is allowing a critique but blocking a reply. That is suppression.
 
Jack Hays said:
Submission of a peer-reviewed paper which was accepted for publication is in no way "abuse." What is abuse is allowing a critique but blocking a reply. That is suppression.
Click to expand...

His conclusion is BS. He slid it past. They admit he got them. That's abusing the journal. It's private property. He's been asked to leave.
 
Jack Hays said:
"Slid it past" peer review?:roll::lamo
Click to expand...

The reviewers presumed it was legit given his credentials. Someone missed a bit of the conclusion. You should understand this. Aren't you posting threads about cons getting into legit journals? I believe you use that as evidence that journals are fake.

So, he got them. They admit it. It's private property. He's been asked to leave.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
The reviewers presumed it was legit given his credentials. Someone missed a bit of the conclusion. You should understand this. Aren't you posting threads about cons getting into legit journals? I believe you use that as evidence that journals are fake.

So, he got them. They admit it. It's private property. He's been asked to leave.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I don't post as you claim.
Whatever the journals' problems, after accepting a peer-reviewed author, and then accepting a critique of his work, it is fundamental that the journal should allow him the right of reply. Anything less is advocacy masquerading as science.
 
Jack Hays said:
Sorry, but I don't post as you claim.
Whatever the journals' problems, after accepting a peer-reviewed author, and then accepting a critique of his work, it is fundamental that the journal should allow him the right of reply. Anything less is advocacy masquerading as science.
Click to expand...

Keep pushing this fraud's raping of a journal. It excites you, huh?
 
Jack Hays said:
I have presented the facts of the matter and supporting links. In reply you call names. That's not up to standard.
Click to expand...

He's really giving it to them good, huh? And they should keep taking it, right? Oh, yeah, that would make you happy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom