<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<div><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/05/01/wglo">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/05/01/wglo</a><span></span>b01.xml&sSheet=/news/2005/05/01/ixworld.html</div>
<div><font face="Verdana" size="+1"><br>
</font><font face="Verdana" size="+2"><b>Leading scientific journals
'are censoring debate on global warming'</b></font><font face="Verdana"
size="+1"><b><br>
By Robert Matthews</b><br>
(Filed: 01/05/2005)<br>
<br>
Two of the world's leading scientific journals have come under fire
from researchers for refusing to publish papers which challenge
fashionable wisdom over global warming.</font><br>
<font face="Verdana" size="+1"></font></div>
<div><font face="Verdana" size="+1">A British authority on natural
catastrophes who disputed whether climatologists really agree that the
Earth is getting warmer because of human activity, says his work was
rejected by the American publication, Science, on the flimsiest of
grounds.</font></div>
<div><font face="Verdana" size="+1"><b><br>
</b>A separate team of climate scientists, which was regularly used by
Science and the journal Nature to review papers on the progress of
global warming, said it was dropped after attempting to publish its
own research which raised doubts over the issue.<br>
<br>
The controversy follows the publication by Science in December of a
paper which claimed to have demonstrated complete agreement among
climate experts, not only that global warming is a genuine phenomenon,
but also that mankind is to blame.<br>
<br>
The author of the research, Dr Naomi Oreskes, of the University of
California, analysed almost 1,000 papers on the subject published
since the early 1990s, and concluded that 75 per cent of them either
explicitly or implicitly backed the consensus view, while none
directly dissented from it.<br>
<br>
Dr Oreskes's study is now routinely cited by those demanding action on
climate change, including the Royal Society and Prof Sir David King,
the Government's chief scientific adviser.<br>
<br>
However, her unequivocal conclusions immediately raised suspicions
among other academics, who knew of many papers that dissented from the
pro-global warming line.<br>
<br>
They included Dr Benny Peiser, a senior lecturer in the science
faculty at Liverpool John Moores University, who decided to conduct
his own analysis of the same set of 1,000 documents - and concluded
that only one third backed the consensus view, while only one per cent
did so explicitly.<br>
<br>
Dr Peiser submitted his findings to Science in January, and was asked
to edit his paper for publication - but has now been told that his
results have been rejected on the grounds that the points he make had
been "widely dispersed on the internet".<br>
<br>
Dr Peiser insists that he has kept his findings strictly confidential.
"It is simply not true that they have appeared elsewhere
already," he said.<br>
<br>
A spokesman for Science said Dr Peiser's research had been rejected
"for a variety of reasons", adding: "The information in
the letter was not perceived to be novel."<br>
<br>
Dr Peiser rejected this: "As the results from my analysis refuted
the original claims, I believe Science has a duty to publish
them."<br>
<br>
Dr Peiser is not the only academic to have had work turned down which
criticises the findings of Dr Oreskes's study. Prof Dennis Bray, of
the GKSS National Research Centre in Geesthacht, Germany, submitted
results from an international study showing that fewer than one in 10
climate scientists believed that climate change is principally caused
by human activity.<br>
<br>
As with Dr Peiser's study, Science refused to publish his rebuttal.
Prof Bray told The Telegraph: "They said it didn't fit with what
they were intending to publish."<br>
<br>
Prof Roy Spencer, at the University of Alabama, a leading authority on
satellite measurements of global temperatures, told The Telegraph:
"It's pretty clear that the editorial board of Science is more
interested in promoting papers that are pro-global warming. It's the
news value that is most important."<br>
<br>
He said that after his own team produced research casting doubt on
man-made global warming, they were no longer sent papers by Nature and
Science for review - despite being acknowledged as world leaders in
the field.<br>
<br>
As a result, says Prof Spencer, flawed research is finding its way
into the leading journals, while attempts to get rebuttals published
fail. "Other scientists have had the same experience", he
said. "The journals have a small set of reviewers who are
pro-global warming."</font></div>
<div><font face="Verdana" size="+1"><br>
Concern about bias within climate research has spread to the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, whose findings are widely
cited by those calling for drastic action on global warming.<br>
<br>
In January, Dr Chris Landsea, an expert on hurricanes with the United
States National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, resigned
from the IPCC, claiming that it was "motivated by pre-conceived
agendas" and was "scientifically unsound".<br>
<br>
A spokesman for Science denied any bias against sceptics of man-made
global warming. "You will find in our letters that there is a
wide range of opinion," she said. "We certainly seek to
cover dissenting views."<br>
<br>
Dr Philip Campbell, the editor-in-chief of Nature, said that the
journal was always happy to publish papers that go against perceived
wisdom, as long as they are of acceptable scientific quality.<br>
<br>
"The idea that we would conspire to suppress science that
undermines the idea of anthropogenic climate change is both false and
utterly naive about what makes journals thrive," he said.<br>
<br>
Dr Peiser said the stifling of dissent and preoccupation with doomsday
scenarios is bringing climate research into disrepute. "There is
a fear that any doubt will be used by politicians to avoid action,"
he said. "But if political considerations dictate what gets
published, it's all over for science."<br>
<br>
</font></div>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
"Only a zit on the wart on the heinie of progress." Copyright 1992, Frank Rice
Terry W. Colvin, Sierra Vista, Arizona (USA) < fortean1 at mindspring.com >
Alternate: < fortean1 at msn.com >
Home Page: <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html">< http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/8958/index.html ></a>
Sites: * Fortean Times * Mystic's Haven * TLCB *
U.S. Message Text Formatting (USMTF) Program
------------
Member: Thailand-Laos-Cambodia Brotherhood (TLCB) Mailing List
TLCB Web Site: <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org">< http://www.tlc-brotherhood.org ></a> [Southeast Asia
veterans, Allies, CIA/NSA, and "steenkeen" contractors are welcome.]</pre>
</body>
</html>