An alarmist throat hold on information

10 Jun 2011

This story can be seen at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/09/lindzen-on-getting-the-special-tre... .... (see also http://climateaudit.org/ June 10th) ... Professor Richard Lindzen is not flavour of the month with AGW alarmists. It seems he alarms the climate science fraternity and their political lackeys - inside science and not just in government. This post describes some of the difficulties he experienced when he submitted a climate science paper to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) when the same journal produces, almost like clockwork, a constant stream of dubious quality pro-AGW papers obviously accepted by the peer review process. His paper was eventually rejected - the potato was too hot for PNAS to handle. He submitted the paper to the Asian Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences who were delighted to publish it. It will be interesting to read what he says to discover what so alarmed the alarmists.

This kind of treatment is common practise (see for example http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-pa... a classic piece of blog writing that describes succinctly the way the system works against sceptics)and www.drtimball.com/2011/ernst-georg-beck-a-major-contributor-to-climate-s.... See also the hassle McKitrick et al had in getting a paper published earlier this year. They were repeatedly stymied by one of the peer reviewers. Anthony Watts also experienced considerable trouble in getting a paper published that eventually came out this year following a couple of years of frustrating hurdles set up on so many occasions it was obviously a tactic to try and get him to give up on the project (on the siting of weather stations). Amazing double standards are applied. Nonsense is published virtually every day of the week and yet it sees the light of day in a very quick time - as long as it has the obligatory pro-AGW intent of purpose. Some well published scientists are extremely adept at including brief mentions of AGW, liberally splashed across their work, as they know it is a requirement. Lindzen of course is a climate scientist with a difference. He does not believe in AGW and therefore anything he writes will reflect this fact - that is why his otherwise working comrades are prepared to create problems. They don't like what he has to say.