Posts Tagged ‘Nature Magazine’

Nobel winner declares boycott of top science journals

Tuesday, December 10th, 2013

Source: SPPI 

by Joe Bast

addicted to govt. funding

addicted to govt. funding

Randy Schekman says his lab will no longer send papers to Nature, Cell and Science as they distort scientific process.

This article reveals that leading scientists know that the “prestige” academic journals are biased in favor of flashy and politically correct research findings, even when such findings are frequently contradicted by subsequent research. This is important in the context of the global warming debate because Nature and Science have published the most alarmist and incredible junk on global warming and refuse to publish skeptics. (Full disclosure: Nature ran a negative editorial about us a few years back and a much better but still inaccurate feature story.) Claims of a “scientific consensus” rely heavily on the assumption that expertise can be measured by how often a scientist appears in one of these journals. Now we know that’s a lie. (more…)


Monday, September 27th, 2010


Blog post by Oliver K. Manuel

Climategate exposed deceit far beyond the wildest imagination of any conspiracy buffs – the UN’s IPCC, world leaders, Al Gore, the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS), the International Inter-Academy Panel on International Issues (IAP), the International Inter-Academy Council (IAC), the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), NASA, the Norwegian Nobel Prize Committee, major research journals, major news media and public TV (BBC, PBS, etc). (more…)

Notes on Global Warming and Abuse in the Peer Review Process

Friday, April 23rd, 2010

Source: Informath

by Douglas Keenan


Following discusses one aspect of how the peer review process affects the study of global warming.

The problems with the peer review process have implications for our understanding of global warming (as well as for science generally). Once something has been published in a peer-reviewed journal—particularly a prestigious journal—it tends to be considered as established, possibly even heralded as “truth”. This means that other researchers will often rely on its conclusions, with little, if any, further checking. The extent to which this happens varies among different branches of science. It seems to be especially so in the study of global warming. (more…)